NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: For almost 2,000 years now, many people have accepted the four "gospels" ( Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ) as the only gospels. Now, with the discovery of "The Gospel of Judas," and the Nag Hammadi documents, it appears that there is far more to primitive Christianity than was ever suspected. Truly fascinating!

I'd love to know what you, especially Christians, think about this.


The Gospel Truth (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/08/opinion/08pagels.html?th&emc=th)


Published: April 8, 2006
The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week three days before he celebrated Passover. ... Jesus said to him, "Step away from the others and I shall tell you the mysteries of the kingdom. It is possible for you to reach it, but you will grieve a great deal."
— The Gospel of Judas

THE Gospel of Judas, which remained virtually unknown to us from the time it was written 1,700 years ago until its publication this week, says that when Judas Iscariot handed Jesus over to the Romans, he was acting on orders from Jesus to carry out a sacred mystery for the sake of human salvation: "Jesus said to Judas, 'Look, you have been told everything. You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.' "

For nearly 2,000 years, most people assumed that the only sources of tradition about Jesus and his disciples were the four gospels in the New Testament. But the unexpected discovery at Nag Hammadi in 1945 of more than 50 ancient Christian texts proved what church fathers said long ago: that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are only a small selection of gospels from among the dozens that circulated among early Christian groups. But now the Gospel of Judas — like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and many others — opens up new perspectives on familiar gospel stories.

Many scholars who first read these gospels had been taught that they were "heretical," which meant they were the wrong gospels. When I was introduced to them as a student, we called them "Gnostic" gospels, the name given to them nearly 2,000 years ago by Irenaeus, one of the fathers of the church, who denounced them as false and "heretical."

Yet those early Christians who loved and revered such texts did not think of themselves as heretics, but as Christians who had received not only what Jesus preached publicly, but also what he taught his disciples when they were talking privately. Many regarded these secret gospels not as radical alternatives to the New Testament Gospels, but as advanced-level teaching for those who had already received Jesus' basic message. Even the Gospel of Mark tells us that Jesus explained things to certain disciples in private, entrusting to them alone "the mystery of the Kingdom of God."

If so, Jesus would have been doing what many other rabbis did then, and most teachers do today. Many of the gospels not included in the New Testament claim to offer secret teaching: Thus the Gospel of Thomas opens, "These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down." The Gospel of Mary Magdalene reveals what Jesus showed Mary in a vision, and the Gospel of Judas claims to offer a spiritual mystery entrusted to Judas alone.

Irenaeus, however, insisted that Jesus did not teach any of his disciples secretly; such secret revelations, he said, were all illegitimate, and those who revered them heretics. Knowing many such gospels circulated among early Christian groups, Irenaeus wrote that "the heretics say that they have more gospels than there actually are; but really, they have no gospel that is not full of blasphemy."

Many of these secret writings, however, were still read and revered by Christians 200 years later when Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, an admirer of Irenaeus, wrote an Easter letter to Christians in Egypt. He ordered them to reject what he called those "secret, illegitimate books" and keep only 27 approved ones. The 27 he named constitute the earliest known list of the New Testament canon, which Athanasius intended above all to be a guideline for books to be read publicly in church. The New Testament Gospels, which contain much that Jesus taught in public, were the most obvious books to put on that list. The secret books, which contained paradox and mystery akin to the mystical teachings of kabbalah, were not considered suitable for beginners.

What in the Gospel of Judas, published this week by the National Geographic Society (disclosure: I was a consultant on the project), goes back to Jesus' actual teaching, and how would we know? And what else was there in the early Christian movement that we had not known before? These are some of the difficult questions that the discoveries raise for us — issues that historians are already debating. What is clear is that the Gospel of Judas has joined the other spectacular discoveries that are exploding the myth of a monolithic Christianity and showing how diverse and fascinating the early Christian movement really was.

Startling as the Gospel of Judas sounds, it amplifies hints we have long read in the Gospels of Mark and John that Jesus knew and even instigated the events of his passion, seeing them as part of a divine plan. Those of us who go to church may find our Easter reflections more mysterious than ever.

Elaine Pagels, the author of "The Gnostic Gospels" and "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas," is a professor of religion at Princeton.

_______________________________________________________________

EDIT:

"The 62-page papyrus manuscript of the text was uncovered in Egypt during the 1950s or 1960s, but its owners did not fully comprehend its significance until recently, according to the Maecenas Foundation in Basel (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/culture/?id=13097)."

"'We're confident this is genuine ancient Christian literature,' said religious scholar Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He and others on the translation team spoke at a National Geographic Society briefing, where they released a translation." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060407/ts_usatoday/longlostgospelofjudasrecaststraitor)

"To verify the authenticity of the Gospel of Judas documents, the National Geographic Society scrutinized them as closely as was possible without harming them further." (http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/authentication.html)

English translation (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gospel_of_judas/#English%20Translation) of the Gospel of Judas.

____________________________________________

I believe this is interesting. I would want to see it for myself.

How many times are people going to post this before they figure out how to check if it's already been posted before?

I believe this is interesting. I would want to see it for myself.
Me too. I suspect that when it's published it will be an instant best-seller.

How many times are people going to post this before they figure out how to check if it's already been posted before?
:p

How many times are people going to post this before they figure out how to check if it's already been posted before?
Too damn much.

Too damn much.
Go away, tiny person. :p

Go away, tiny person. :p

If only you'd heed your own advice.

If only you'd heed your own advice.

Ouch!

COMMENTARY: For almost 2,000 years now, many people have accepted the four "gospels" ( Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ) as the only gospels. Now, with the discovery of "The Gospel of Judas," and the Nag Hammadi documents, it appears that there is far more to primitive Christianity than was ever suspected. Truly fascinating!

I'd love to know what you, especially Christians, think about this.



The Gospel of Judas seems to one of the Gnostic gospels that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Gnostics were a heretical sect who liked to pretend that they had a lot of secret knowledge that was unknown to everyone else and they produced a new "Gospel" just about every month. These documents may be of historical interest but it would be a mistake to give them they same degree of credibility as the original Gospels (which were written by people who actually knew Jesus).

The Gospel of Judas seems to one of the Gnostic gospels that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Gnostics were a heretical sect who liked to pretend that they had a lot of secret knowledge that was unknown to everyone else and they produced a new "Gospel" just about every month. These documents may be of historical interest but it would be a mistake to give them they same degree of credibility as the original Gospels (which were written by people who actually knew Jesus).
That's funny.
*Sits back to watch the fireworks*

How many times are people going to post this before they figure out how to check if it's already been posted before?
a billion times

The Gospel of Judas seems to one of the Gnostic gospels that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Gnostics were a heretical sect who liked to pretend that they had a lot of secret knowledge that was unknown to everyone else and they produced a new "Gospel" just about every month. These documents may be of historical interest but it would be a mistake to give them they same degree of credibility as the original Gospels (which were written by people who actually knew Jesus).
"The 62-page papyrus manuscript of the text was uncovered in Egypt during the 1950s or 1960s, but its owners did not fully comprehend its significance until recently, according to the Maecenas Foundation in Basel (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/culture/?id=13097)."

"'We're confident this is genuine ancient Christian literature,' said religious scholar Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He and others on the translation team spoke at a National Geographic Society briefing, where they released a translation." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060407/ts_usatoday/longlostgospelofjudasrecaststraitor)

"To verify the authenticity of the Gospel of Judas documents, the National Geographic Society scrutinized them as closely as was possible without harming them further." (http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/authentication.html)

The Gospel of Judas seems to one of the Gnostic gospels that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Gnostics were a heretical sect who liked to pretend that they had a lot of secret knowledge that was unknown to everyone else and they produced a new "Gospel" just about every month. These documents may be of historical interest but it would be a mistake to give them they same degree of credibility as the original Gospels (which were written by people who actually knew Jesus).

I thought they were written about fifty years after the event?

Interesting, though where could you get these books anyways? It sounds like it is still being kept under wraps and out of the bible.

"The 62-page papyrus manuscript of the text was uncovered in Egypt during the 1950s or 1960s, but its owners did not fully comprehend its significance until recently, according to the Maecenas Foundation in Basel."

Hehe .... can you imagine having something like that just laying about your magazine rack?

Hehe .... can you imagine having something like that just laying about your magazine rack?
LOL! Uh ... in a word? No! :D

Apparently it was kept in a bank vault (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060408/LIFESTYLE04/604080433/1041/rss11).

Hehe .... can you imagine having something like that just laying about your magazine rack?
I've got some old Playboys laying around, and they make me feel, em, spiritual. :D

I am more shocked that it survived all this time and how for 60 years no one read it to figure out what it was. >.>

I am more shocked that it survived all this time and how for 60 years no one read it to figure out what it was. >.>
Apparently it was kept in a bank vault (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060408/LIFESTYLE04/604080433/1041/rss11).

I've got some old Playboys laying around, and they make me feel, em, spiritual. :D
LOL! Um ... I strongly suspect that feeling is something other than "spiritual!" :D

LOL! Um ... I strongly suspect that feeling is something other than "spiritual!" :D

Ewww......gross.
Besides magizines are out of date. :P

Ewww......gross.
Besides magizines are out of date. :P
Mostly. They've been e-obsolesed. :)

The Gospel of Judas seems to one of the Gnostic gospels that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Gnostics were a heretical sect who liked to pretend that they had a lot of secret knowledge that was unknown to everyone else and they produced a new "Gospel" just about every month. These documents may be of historical interest but it would be a mistake to give them they same degree of credibility as the original Gospels (which were written by people who actually knew Jesus).
exactly. it was already rejected by church fathers way back when they decided what to keep as holy scripture.

the thing itself dates from around 300ad. its a copy of a work that best guess has being written at around 150ad. theres no way to know if its an accurate copy. there is no way to know WHO wrote the original. it was known back at the time when the council of <whatever> decided what was canon and what wasnt and this was rejected. probably because if its gnostic interpretation of christianity.

it will be interesting to see what the book says and what the implications are of it. there were entire branches of original christianity that were wiped out by the roman christians. most of their new testaments survive only in commentaries by the winners. this might be like looking into the long supressed past.

How many times are people going to post this before they figure out how to check if it's already been posted before?

But this one links to an english translation. :)

this might be like looking into the long supressed past.
My thoughts exactly.

The more you post, the more I become impressed, Legs! :)

But this one links to an english translation. :)
I love you! :fluffle: :D

But this one links to an english translation. :)

Last edited by Eutrusca : Today at 6:26 PM.

Oh, and so does google.

Last edited by Eutrusca : Today at 6:26 PM.

Oh, and so does google.
Of course. And your point would be??? :p

Last edited by Eutrusca : Today at 6:26 PM.

Oh, and so does google.

You expect generalites to actually type stuff into google? Half of us don't even leave NS unless we're following a link. :p

Of course. And your point would be??? :p

Someone as pointless as you should be referring that question elsewhere.

Well..however true that is about us not wanting to search on our own...you can't blame us for not always going link hunting (though I do that). Using the forum search button is also kinda bad as you search for titles or else you get your butt owned with 100 useless threads with the words in them.

Well..however true that is about us not wanting to search on our own...you can't blame us for not always going link hunting (though I do that). Using the forum search button is also kinda bad as you search for titles or else you get your butt owned with 100 useless threads with the words in them.
True. True. Usually, if I'm interested enough in a subject I post about, I'm interested enough to find some links to it and post the best of the lot.

With Tanthan, Kjata Major and the others I been on here, I've had to search alot and I come to realize that the search button is really bad because it limits the amount of results and even gets rid of 'common' words. I couldn't find that thread about a 13 year old raping those 8 girls. The forum has failed (and so did google)

Btw...Can you believe the Ebay ad I got?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/Tanthan/rolflmao2.jpg

Which is why I am never tracking it down again. >.>

With Tanthan, Kjata Major and the others I been on here, I've had to search alot and I come to realize that the search button is really bad because it limits the amount of results and even gets rid of 'common' words. I couldn't find that thread about a 13 year old raping those 8 girls. The forum has failed (and so did google)

Btw...Can you believe the Ebay ad I got?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a128/Tanthan/rolflmao2.jpg

Which is why I am never tracking it down again. >.>
ROFLMFAO!!! Hmm. I wonder if the cops know about this? Tsk! :D

even tho i live in Egypt "The Home of the Gospel of Judas" we have not heard of this Issue, i only knew about these manuscripts two hours ago or something... and from the BBC and not an Egyptian Media... why do they want to keep this a secret here in Egypt???

Someone as pointless as you should be referring that question elsewhere.
Yes. Yes. My entire life is pointless. Verily my very existence is a stain on the good name of humanity! I shall forthwith immolate myself and remove this undue burden from the rest of you. Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa! :p

ROFLMFAO!!! Hmm. I wonder if the cops know about this? Tsk! :D


SOMEBODY better warn the Department of Homeland Security...

SOMEBODY better warn the Department of Homeland Security...

Heh.

(By the way, your sig is three lines too long).

even tho i live in Egypt "The Home of the Gospel of Judas" we have not heard of this Issue, i only knew about these manuscripts two hours ago or something... and from the BBC and not an Egyptian Media... why do they want to keep this a secret here in Egypt???
Apparently it's been a "secret" from all of us. It was locked in a bank vault for many years. [ see one of the earlier posts for a link about this ]

Yes. Yes. My entire life is pointless. Verily my very existence is a stain on the good name of humanity! I shall forthwith immolate myself and remove this undue burden from the rest of you. Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa! :p

Corruptio optimi pessima.

Corruptio optimi pessima.

Don't bring latin into this!

Locked in a bank vault or not...someone should have read it before they stored it. It is only 2000 years old. >.>

Don't bring latin into this!

As they say, excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta!

Corruptio optimi pessima.
Uh ... what does that have to do with my post? "The corruption of the best is the worst of all?" Huh? :confused:

All this latin....was the Gospel written in Latin and said everyone to insult and bantar in latin!? NO!

All this latin....was the Gospel written in Latin and said everyone to insult and bantar in latin!? NO!
LOL! Tell that to Fass! :p

There's one thing bothering me about all this.

If this account is genuine, what happened to Judas? He obviously wrote this after his betrayal, meaning that he felt his action was divinely justified, so I presume he wouldn't kill himself. The only other explanation offered biblically was that he was punished by his insides exploding; presumably divine punishment there. If that was the case, then surely Judas can't have been doing the will of God?

So what happened next?

I thought they were written about fifty years after the event?
Correct. Mark was the first gospel, and the other 3 are based on it. In Mark, there's a reference to a Jewish temple in Jeruseleum being destroyed, which occured in 70AD, about 40 years after Christ's death. And the gospel no longer exists. Current copies are based on a 2nd century partial transcription of the orginal.

Only one of them was written by an apostle (Matthew), and one does wonder how he managed to live that long. He would have all been in his 70s or 80s when he wrote his gospels - and life expentancy back then wouldn't have been more than 50. John's was written around 100AD - long after anyone who had met Jesus was still living, and the other two were based on what Peter and Paul told them, near the end of their lives - again when they would have had to be in their 70s at least.

Makes you also wonder why nothing was mentioned in the gospels about what happened in those years from Christ's death to them writing their stories. The gospels are so detailed, yet almost nothing is mentioned about what happened afterwards.

Uh ... what does that have to do with my post? "The corruption of the best is the worst of all?" Huh? :confused:

It has to do with your general posting style.

There's one thing bothering me about all this.

If this account is genuine, what happened to Judas? He obviously wrote this after his betrayal, meaning that he felt his action was divinely justified, so I presume he wouldn't kill himself. The only other explanation offered biblically was that he was punished by his insides exploding; presumably divine punishment there. If that was the case, then surely Judas can't have been doing the will of God?

So what happened next?

I hate to say this but this is a valid point.

i never really thought judas was a bad guy at all, what it says in the excerpt of the scripture eut posted is pretty much what i thought all along.

doesnt really come to a surprise to me

Correct. Mark was the first gospel, and the other 3 are based on it. In Mark, there's a reference to a Jewish temple in Jeruseleum being destroyed, which occured in 70AD, about 40 years after Christ's death. And the gospel no longer exists. Current copies are based on a 2nd century partial transcription of the orginal.

Only one of them was written by an apostle (Matthew), and one does wonder how he managed to live that long. He would have all been in his 70s or 80s when he wrote his gospels - and life expentancy back then wouldn't have been more than 50. John's was written around 100AD - long after anyone who had met Jesus was still living, and the other two were based on what Peter and Paul told them, near the end of their lives - again when they would have had to be in their 70s at least.

I doubt that Matthew was written by an apostle either, his account of events is just too wacky to be taken seriously. We're expected to believe that after Jesus died there was an eclipse (during a full moon), an earthquake, and the dead rose from their graves and walked the streets. What's more, we're expected to believe that this completely escaped the notice of everyone else in Jerusalem, including the other apostles.

Makes you also wonder why nothing was mentioned in the gospels about what happened in those years from Christ's death to them writing their stories. The gospels are so detailed, yet almost nothing is mentioned about what happened afterwards.

Unless I'm mistaken the Gospels also fail to mention anything that happened to Jesus between the age of 12 and 30, maybe the Mormans are right and this was when he visited America. ;)

There's one thing bothering me about all this.

If this account is genuine, what happened to Judas? He obviously wrote this after his betrayal, meaning that he felt his action was divinely justified, so I presume he wouldn't kill himself. The only other explanation offered biblically was that he was punished by his insides exploding; presumably divine punishment there. If that was the case, then surely Judas can't have been doing the will of God?

So what happened next?

It has long been suggested that Judas was the target of retributative murder. If the text has genuine origins, it could be as simple as a 'last testament' by the condemned... Judas' last words to his disciples.

The 'guts exploding' you talk about is argued to be the act of disembowling, possibly while being hanged.

Correct. Mark was the first gospel, and the other 3 are based on it. In Mark, there's a reference to a Jewish temple in Jeruseleum being destroyed, which occured in 70AD, about 40 years after Christ's death. And the gospel no longer exists. Current copies are based on a 2nd century partial transcription of the orginal.

Only one of them was written by an apostle (Matthew), and one does wonder how he managed to live that long. He would have all been in his 70s or 80s when he wrote his gospels - and life expentancy back then wouldn't have been more than 50. John's was written around 100AD - long after anyone who had met Jesus was still living, and the other two were based on what Peter and Paul told them, near the end of their lives - again when they would have had to be in their 70s at least.

Makes you also wonder why nothing was mentioned in the gospels about what happened in those years from Christ's death to them writing their stories. The gospels are so detailed, yet almost nothing is mentioned about what happened afterwards.

Actually - it is argued that Mark may have been the first 'Gospel' text written, but it was not the text that inspired the others... there is argued to be a "Q" scripture (which may no longer exist, it certainly hasn't been found in whole format), which inspired the Gospeld of Mark and Matthew, at least. Luke is argued to be the work of Pauline disciples, still largely centred around "Q". John's 'Gospel' is the furthest removed from the original source, and also from any connection with Jesus... and yet, that is the one that has been promoted as the 'champion' scripture, because of it's mystical qualities.

It has to do with your general posting style.
( shrug ) So sue me. :D

Unless I'm mistaken the Gospels also fail to mention anything that happened to Jesus between the age of 12 and 30, maybe the Mormans are right and this was when he visited America. ;)
As I recall, some of the books in the Apocrapha purport to deal with that time frame.

COMMENTARY: For almost 2,000 years now, many people have accepted the four "gospels" ( Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ) as the only gospels.

Haven't the gospels of Thomas and Mary and such been around for centuries as well? Why would mainstream Christians suddenly accept this new one any more than they accept those? The Gnostics will probably have a field day with it, though.

( shrug ) So sue me. :D

Non facias malum ut inde fiat bonum.

Non facias malum ut inde fiat bonum.

Flamebaiting is STILL flamebaiting, even if you do it in a dead language.

You've been doing it consistently thoroughout the thread, and Eutrusca doesn't seem to have dignified it with a response... which makes me think he's a little 'bigger' than you seem to imagine.

He also doesn't seem to have reported you to Moderation... which would, I believe, be within his rights under Jolt rules. So, you are beholden to his mercy, also.

Don't get me wrong... Eutrusca and I see eye to eye on almost no issues, most of the time.

But you are boring me, with your consistent trollish behaviour.

I'm explaining why, and then I'm asking you nicely... please stop.

Flamebaiting is STILL flamebaiting, even if you do it in a dead language.

Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.

You've been doing it consistently thoroughout the thread, and Eutrusca doesn't seem to have dignified it with a response... which makes me think he's a little 'bigger' than you seem to imagine.

More legible than thou, it seems, seeing as he has indeed responded.

He also doesn't seem to have reported you to Moderation... which would, I believe, be within his rights under Jolt rules. So, you are beholden to his mercy, also.

And you are beholden to your own ignorance. Eutrusca knows where he has me.

Don't get me wrong... Eutrusca and I see eye to eye on almost no issues, most of the time.

But you are boring me, with your consistent trollish behaviour.

I'm explaining why, and then I'm asking you nicely... please stop.

Please, stick your nose into some other people's business. One would think someone with your post count would be well aware of the teasing I and Eutrusca like to subject one another to. There is a reason Eutrusca has not "reported" me, and that reason is because he knows the game we play, as jesters with spears. You, apparently, do not.

Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.


Believe it or not, I am not a god.

Neither am I an ox.

And, if your point was about double standards, I am not well reknowned for my 'flamebaiting'... so you'd be kind of following an illogical avenue.

Also, of course, one could just come to the conclusion that you are, once again, flamebaiting, in a dead language... just with a different poster.


More legible than thou, it seems, seeing as he has indeed responded.


I don't think 'legible' is the word you mean.


And you are beholden to your own ignorance. Eutrusca knows where he has me.

Please, stick your nose into some other people's business. One would think someone with your post count would be well aware of the teasing I and Eutrusca like to subject one another to. There is a reason Eutrusca has not "reported" me, and that reason is because he knows the game we play, as jesters with spears. You, apparently, do not.

Don't stick my nose into other people's business?

Are you, perhaps, under the impression that you are posting through MSN - and, therefore, have a 'private room'... or that you are posying in the spam forum?

I am in this thread to debate the topic. You seem to be here to spam the thread with flamebait.

You have said I am not playing the 'game' you are playing, and you are right. But, if it isn't the topic of the thread, I asked nicely, please take it somewhere ele.

Flamebaiting is STILL flamebaiting, even if you do it in a dead language.

You've been doing it consistently thoroughout the thread, and Eutrusca doesn't seem to have dignified it with a response... which makes me think he's a little 'bigger' than you seem to imagine.

He also doesn't seem to have reported you to Moderation... which would, I believe, be within his rights under Jolt rules. So, you are beholden to his mercy, also.

Don't get me wrong... Eutrusca and I see eye to eye on almost no issues, most of the time.

But you are boring me, with your consistent trollish behaviour.

I'm explaining why, and then I'm asking you nicely... please stop.
ROFL! Oh, this is priceless. I get to sit on the sidelines while Grave_n_idle and the inimitable Fass go at one another! [ gets some popcorn ] :D

The Gnostics weren't heretics! Even the name Gnostic is taken from the GReek word for truth, "gnosis".

Believe it or not, I am not a god.

Neither am I an ox.

And, if your point was about double standards, I am not well reknowned for my 'flamebaiting'... so you'd be kind of following an illogical avenue.

Also, of course, one could just come to the conclusion that you are, once again, flamebaiting, in a dead language... just with a different poster.

And one could also come to the conclusion that you have a problem with reading comprehension. I am Jupiter to your ox, in the sense that I can tease Eutrusca without it being "flamebait." You miss the entire point, and then jump into something where you have no place.

I don't think 'legible' is the word you mean.

And, once more, you miss the point. That was exactly the word I intended.

Don't stick my nose into other people's business?

Are you, perhaps, under the impression that you are posting through MSN - and, therefore, have a 'private room'... or that you are posying in the spam forum?

And are you perhaps under the impression that you can speak for Eutrusca? Or under the impression that you are not currently making a fool of yourself for not letting go of a situation where you have clearly failed to accurately gauge the context and ambiance?

I am in this thread to debate the topic. You seem to be here to spam the thread with flamebait.

You have said I am not playing the 'game' you are playing, and you are right. But, if it isn't the topic of the thread, I asked nicely, please take it somewhere ele.

And are you somehow under the impression that you can speak for the OP? Do run along, now.

Flamebaiting is STILL flamebaiting, even if you do it in a dead language.

I don't know why I find this funny but I do. :p

The Gnostics weren't heretics! Even the name Gnostic is taken from the GReek word for truth, "gnosis".

Heresy is subjective. Their docetic views alone were enough to piss off the church even before you factor in their ideas on salvation and other contentous issues.

As I recall, some of the books in the Apocrapha purport to deal with that time frame.

Do you remember which ones? More to the point are they as entertaining as Anne Rice's recent account of Jesus's childhood? ;)

The Gnostics weren't heretics! Even the name Gnostic is taken from the GReek word for truth, "gnosis".
they werent heretics to themselves

they werent heretics before the standardization of christian belief under constantine

AFTER the standardization of christian beliefs, they were heretics and were forced to covert or die. all of their heretical writings were burned. any scribe thought to be likely to rewrite what was burned had his hands cut off.

The Gospel of Judas seems to one of the Gnostic gospels that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Gnostics were a heretical sect who liked to pretend that they had a lot of secret knowledge that was unknown to everyone else and they produced a new "Gospel" just about every month. These documents may be of historical interest but it would be a mistake to give them they same degree of credibility as the original Gospels (which were written by people who actually knew Jesus).

No they weren't. They were written over many years based on the stories that were told. In Jesus' lifetime he was a relativly minor figure. There were a thousand street preachers just like him. It was only in successive generations that his story gained significance and people began writing about him.

The Gnostics weren't heretics! Even the name Gnostic is taken from the GReek word for truth, "gnosis".I believe a more accurate translation is "knowledge."

I found the reports on the Book of Judas to be very interesting and I’m looking forward to seeing the results of more research. The Book of Revelations was the last of the official books and despite it having that add-on feel, nobody seemed to have a problem with the addition of the least Jesus-like of the books. From what I’ve seen in reports, the Book of Judas makes much more sense, given the two of the possible alternatives.

First, that Jesus died on the Cross for our Sins, knowingly and willingly.

Second, that as a part of an elaborate conspiracy, Jesus had some control over the timing of his arrest and execution, so that he could escape the situation he was in and disappear to live out the rest of his life elsewhere.

The Bruce

The fact that there we haven’t found any earlier versions of the Book of Judas may have a lot to do with the power struggles amongst the apostles and their followers, that resulted in the destruction of any non-sanctioned texts of the biblical times.

I doubt that Matthew was written by an apostle either, his account of events is just too wacky to be taken seriously. We're expected to believe that after Jesus died there was an eclipse (during a full moon), an earthquake, and the dead rose from their graves and walked the streets. What's more, we're expected to believe that this completely escaped the notice of everyone else in Jerusalem, including the other apostles.


I doubt if any of the gospels were actually written by disciples since they were probably all illiterate. The gospel writers probably composed their books from the various eyewitness accounts they got from the disciples (e.g. Luke travelled around the Mediterranean with Paul and met the disciples in Jerusalem). They may have also had earlier written texts to work from (the "Q" texts). All this means that their accounts may not be 100% reliable but they are a lot better than fantasies written by a group of cultists 200 years later.

The Gnostics weren't heretics! Even the name Gnostic is taken from the GReek word for truth, "gnosis".


Gnosis means "knowledge" not "truth". It refers to their belief that the key to salvation came through special secrets which only they possessed. They were an elitist secret society (a bit like the Free Masons) with mystical initiations, secret signs etc. They couldn't use the standard Christian texts as their "secret knowledge", since these were too widely available, so they had to invent some extra ones. Hence the "Gospel of Peter", the "Gospel of Mary Magellan", the "Gospel of Judas" etc. Of course all this talk of secret knowledge appeals to modern conspiracy theorists but these books are about as reliable as the average conspiracy website.

The fact that there we haven’t found any earlier versions of the Book of Judas may have a lot to do with the power struggles amongst the apostles and their followers, that resulted in the destruction of any non-sanctioned texts of the biblical times.
it wasnt the apostles who had the biggest power struggles. (although already in the book of acts there were big disputes over whether or not gentiles had to become jews before they became christians, meaning follow jewish circumcision and dietary laws, or if they could go straight to christianity)

the rough stuff came after constantine coverted to the "roman" christianity in the 300's and the purges began.

there were quite a few equally popular branches of christianity that sprung up at the same time as the version we practice today

the gnostics focused on the secret mystical knowlege of jesus

the ebionites were those who continued on with the idea that you must follow the jewish laws in order to be a christian

the arianists denied the divinity of christ

Sabellianists believe that the father son and holy spirit are different MODES of god not distinctly different persons. (seems a bit subtle to get killed for)

things we think of today as ancient heresies or new interpretations of jesus were different branches of early christianity in its infancy. any of them could have turned out to be the winner in the contest of whose christianity is the most correct. it took the backing of the roman emperor to decide the issue.

it wasnt the apostles who had the biggest power struggles. (although already in the book of acts there were big disputes over whether or not gentiles had to become jews before they became christians, meaning follow jewish circumcision and dietary laws, or if they could go straight to christianity)


It was apparently very clear that a number of women were a large part in the ministry of Jesus and yet they have almost no say in the Bible, or have their influence diminished. I would call that the losing side of a power struggle. Paul was very much in favour of putting women in their place, despite the fact that Jesus’ female followers were the only ones at his tomb keeping vigil.

It was apparently very clear that a number of women were a large part in the ministry of Jesus and yet they have almost no say in the Bible, or have their influence diminished. I would call that the losing side of a power struggle. Paul was very much in favour of putting women in their place, despite the fact that Jesus’ female followers were the only ones at his tomb keeping vigil.
yeah but i think (and cant look it up right now) that women were more prominent in the non-pauline sects.

so it may be that they didnt lose big time until constantine.

I havn't been keeping up with this thread, nor have I gotten a chance to check out the Gospel of Judas yet. I just wanted to comment on a few posts I saw by Eden3

The Gospel of Judas seems to one of the Gnostic gospels that were written in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The Gnostics were a heretical sect who liked to pretend that they had a lot of secret knowledge that was unknown to everyone else and they produced a new "Gospel" just about every month. These documents may be of historical interest but it would be a mistake to give them they same degree of credibility as the original Gospels (which were written by people who actually knew Jesus).

I know someone else already stated it, but "heretical" is very subjective. Protestants were dubbed to be heretical as well. The use of the term heresy is an emic use, and as thus it doesn't give an accurate depiction of any one religion or sect.

You also seem to have the mistaken perception that the canonical Gospels are credible and were actually written by the apostles. In fact, they weren't. Each gospel is pseudopigraphic; they were written anonymously, and later had authors attributed to them. This is similiar to what was done with Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas. Not once in the actual texts does it state who the authors were, nor do we see that authorship attributed to those gospels until the second century. They aren't any more reliable than Gnostic accounts.

I doubt if any of the gospels were actually written by disciples since they were probably all illiterate. The gospel writers probably composed their books from the various eyewitness accounts they got from the disciples (e.g. Luke travelled around the Mediterranean with Paul and met the disciples in Jerusalem). They may have also had earlier written texts to work from (the "Q" texts). All this means that their accounts may not be 100% reliable but they are a lot better than fantasies written by a group of cultists 200 years later.

Well, in this post you seem to have contradicted your previous post. Did people who actually knew Jesus write the gospels or were they composed by others from eyewitness accounts? In fact, there is no evidence to support either. The "eyewitness accounts" argument is just a common apologetic tactic. The fact is, there is not a single eyewitness record of Jesus.

Like I stated above, there is no evidence that Luke wrote the gospel of Luke. It is pseudopigraphic - it first began to be attributed to Luke during the second century, and it wasn't until the canonization process that they actually began to add "Luke" onto the text.

Gnosis means "knowledge" not "truth". It refers to their belief that the key to salvation came through special secrets which only they possessed. They were an elitist secret society (a bit like the Free Masons) with mystical initiations, secret signs etc. They couldn't use the standard Christian texts as their "secret knowledge", since these were too widely available, so they had to invent some extra ones. Hence the "Gospel of Peter", the "Gospel of Mary Magellan", the "Gospel of Judas" etc. Of course all this talk of secret knowledge appeals to modern conspiracy theorists but these books are about as reliable as the average conspiracy website.

I thought I would comment on the previous post, although I affixed it to this one. Many of the Gnostic texts were not written 200 years earlier. Many are contemporary to the canonical Gospels. In fact, the Gnostics existed as a pre-Christian sect long before Christianity began to develop. They played an essential part in the formation of the Jesus myth.

Ironically you say "they couldn't use the standard Christian texts." At this time, there were no standard Christian texts. However, if you're referring to the four Gospels, John was actually widely used by the Gnostics. So much so, that early Orthodoxy rejected John as being a Gnostic text until the end of the 2nd century.

The Gospel of Peter however, was used by early Orthodoxy. It was almost canonized. If things had gone a little different with the religious-political disputes between Bishops, you would be reading the Gospel of Peter rather than the Gospel of John.

"Elitist secret society" describes virtually all forms of Christianity during the first few centuries. They all had mysticial initiations, secret signs, and everything you just mentioned. There wasn't as wide a gap between Gnostics and Orthodoxy in the beginning as you may think. Christians didn't have the Bible you have today, nor did they limit themselves to the texts that you are limited to today. Early Orthodoxy used many of these Gnostic scriptures, and many Apocryphal and non-canonical scriptures. Tertullian went as far to call things like Enoch "scripture" and "inspired" long before the four Gospels you use today were considered such.

In short, the Biblical canon you have today is a result of 4th century canonization. It doesn't represent the texts that early Christians used, both Orthodox and Gnostic.

It was apparently very clear that a number of women were a large part in the ministry of Jesus and yet they have almost no say in the Bible, or have their influence diminished. I would call that the losing side of a power struggle. Paul was very much in favour of putting women in their place, despite the fact that Jesus’ female followers were the only ones at his tomb keeping vigil.
That's something Ehrman addresses in Misquoting Jesus. He notes that the most misogynist passages come from parts of the Pauline bible that most scholars think Paul didn't actually write, but were rather written by followers of Paul some years later, and that there were other sections in the Pauline letters that seem to be changed by later scribes. I've been a pretty harsh critic of Paul in the past, but I think his followers may have been more to blame than he was.

And one could also come to the conclusion that you have a problem with reading comprehension. I am Jupiter to your ox, in the sense that I can tease Eutrusca without it being "flamebait." You miss the entire point, and then jump into something where you have no place.


I have 'place' to jump in, because you are polluting what could be an interesting discussion, with your pointless activities.

I ignored it at first, and just got on with reading the thread... but there's a point at which the spam quotient gets a little ridiculous. There are other places you can do it - you don't HAVE to take up space in this thread.

I asked nicely, so I'm not sure quite what put your 'knickers in such a twist'... the polite thing to do would have been to take it elsewhere.

I'm not quite sure why you think my 'reading comprehension' is flawed, anyway... whether or not your perceive yourself as Jupiter or an ox, matters not to me..


And, once more, you miss the point. That was exactly the word I intended.


Really? You meant that he was more easy to read, than I?

Okay - I stand corrected. I thought the problem with the sentence was a misused word. If, instead, you wish to claim the sentence was intended to be nonsensical, I withdraw my comment.


And are you perhaps under the impression that you can speak for Eutrusca? Or under the impression that you are not currently making a fool of yourself for not letting go of a situation where you have clearly failed to accurately gauge the context and ambiance?


I do not consider that I have been making a fool of myself. I have politely asked you to stop wasting thread-space with off-topic, possibly insulting, behaviour.

Whether or not I speak for Eutrusca is almost beside the point. I appreciated Eutrusca starting the thread, because it seems like an interesting subject for debate. If you WISH the thread to be "I'm Fass, Look At ME!", you might consdier starting a different thread, rather than hijacking this one.


And are you somehow under the impression that you can speak for the OP? Do run along, now.

It worries me a little, that you are so busy 'spamming' the thread, and have paid so little attention to what others have earnestly been trying to debate... that you are apparently unaware that Eutrusca and 'the OP' might bear more than a passing resemblance.

Twice I've asked nicely, and twice you have been rude and insulting... I'd hoped for better.

But, I'll let you have your 'small victory'... I've made my case, and the rest is up to you.

I'm not going to waste any more of Eutrusca's thread debating the relative merits of your actions, and I don't really feel like indulging you any further with this delicate visage of fencing. I've made my point, and I don't want to be drawn into a battle of wits with an opponent who appears to be less than fully armed.

So Christians can't call Jews Christ-Killers anymore. Oh well, they can both team up now and declare Muslims to be Anthropomorphic Evil that needs to be converted or exterminated!!

So Christians can't call Jews Christ-Killers anymore. Oh well, they can both team up now and declare Muslims to be Anthropomorphic Evil that needs to be converted or exterminated!!

Christians have started to read the bible now?

I must have missed that memo when it was circulated.

That's something Ehrman addresses in Misquoting Jesus. He notes that the most misogynist passages come from parts of the Pauline bible that most scholars think Paul didn't actually write, but were rather written by followers of Paul some years later, and that there were other sections in the Pauline letters that seem to be changed by later scribes. I've been a pretty harsh critic of Paul in the past, but I think his followers may have been more to blame than he was.

It’s always been one of the biggest problems with the Bible. All of it was written some years later. Not by Jesus. Not by the 12. Not always even by the “Chroniclers” of the 12. Often you’re looking at fourth hand accounts of the times of Jesus, by the Chroniclers of the Chroniclers.

I have 'place' to jump in, because you are polluting what could be an interesting discussion, with your pointless activities.

Medice, cura te ipsum.

I ignored it at first, and just got on with reading the thread... but there's a point at which the spam quotient gets a little ridiculous. There are other places you can do it - you don't HAVE to take up space in this thread.

I asked nicely, so I'm not sure quite what put your 'knickers in such a twist'... the polite thing to do would have been to take it elsewhere.

I'm not quite sure why you think my 'reading comprehension' is flawed, anyway... whether or not your perceive yourself as Jupiter or an ox, matters not to me...

And, as I said, neither seem the intraciacies of reading and understanding what you've read.

Really? You meant that he was more easy to read, than I?

Okay - I stand corrected. I thought the problem with the sentence was a misused word. If, instead, you wish to claim the sentence was intended to be nonsensical, I withdraw my comment.

Notice how Eutrusca wasn't getting upset, but instead using humorous smileys? Oh, who am I kidding, of you course you didn't, since, as we've seen, something has stunted your literacy, but people who actually manage to read saw how readable Eutrusca was - he was in on the fun. Yes, fun. A little hazing among friends, which, per definition, excluded you. So, yes, Eutrusca was legible. Too bad you yourself completely continue to miss the point.

I do not consider that I have been making a fool of myself. I have politely asked you to stop wasting thread-space with off-topic, possibly insulting, behaviour.

Whether or not I speak for Eutrusca is almost beside the point. I appreciated Eutrusca starting the thread, because it seems like an interesting subject for debate. If you WISH the thread to be "I'm Fass, Look At ME!", you might consdier starting a different thread, rather than hijacking this one.

Cura te ipsum, is so fitting, I have to repeat it.

It worries me a little, that you are so busy 'spamming' the thread, and have paid so little attention to what others have earnestly been trying to debate... that you are apparently unaware that Eutrusca and 'the OP' might bear more than a passing resemblance.

There's that not understanding what you've read again. Of course Eutrusca is the OP. That's the point, you know. Him being the OP, for whom you cannot speak. He who was in on the whole thing. He, with whose participation, the thread cannot be "jacked," seeing as he is the OP. Eutrusca, the OP.

Really, now, it seems I have to start spelling everything out to you. :rolleyes:

Twice I've asked nicely, and twice you have been rude and insulting... I'd hoped for better.

No, you didn't, because you know with whom you are conversing. At least, I hope this naïvety is mocked.

But, I'll let you have your 'small victory'... I've made my case, and the rest is up to you.

I'm not going to waste any more of Eutrusca's thread debating the relative merits of your actions, and I don't really feel like indulging you any further with this delicate visage of fencing. I've made my point, and I don't want to be drawn into a battle of wits with an opponent who appears to be less than fully armed.

It seems, my dear, not so much unlike the written word, and it being a conduit for wit, wit itself would be like pearls before swine with you.

It’s always been one of the biggest problems with the Bible. All of it was written some years later. Not by Jesus. Not by the 12. Not always even by the “Chroniclers” of the 12. Often you’re looking at fourth hand accounts of the times of Jesus, by the Chroniclers of the Chroniclers.
That and the huge number of textual inconsistencies between the various surviving manuscripts--there are more variants between the surviving manuscripts than there are actual words in the NT. Most of those variants are simple errors in transcription, but there are more than a few changes that were put in for doctrinal and political reasons.

That and the huge number of textual inconsistencies between the various surviving manuscripts--there are more variants between the surviving manuscripts than there are actual words in the NT. Most of those variants are simple errors in transcription, but there are more than a few changes that were put in for doctrinal and political reasons.
Whenever I encounter one of the people who tries to convince me that the events described in the Bible are literally "true," I find myself slipping into a day dream...

Two thousand years in the future, the dominant human religion is Scientology. Scientologists are secure in their faith because theirs is the only religion for which the original "holy texts" still survive in the form they took while the messiah (The El Ron) walked the Earth.

You see, the Scientologists of the 20th and 21st centuries put much effort into ensuring that their Gospels would survive: thousands of metal records have been made of their beliefs, records that can be played using a solar-powered turn table, and these records have been stored in heat-resistant titanium boxes. They also had the Gospels Of El Ron etched into metal plates, stored on cutting-edge data disks, and printed on super-durable top-secret microfilm. These were then entombed in various bunkers throughout the world, designed to be able to survive even a nuclear blast.*

And, of course, because most human beings seem determined to individually challenge every previously-held record for stupidity, the humans of the year 4000 conclude that El Ron's words must be true because, well...these Holy Texts are really really OLD! I mean, we can prove that these texts are goddam OLD, and lots and lots of people believed in them even though they were persecuted and outcast for their beliefs, and why on Earth would people believe in something that wasn't true? Why would people believe in crazy-ass fairy tales, even being willing to be cast out of their families and society for believing, if those fairy tales weren't really true?!

Yes, Scientology is clearly the way to go. Some crazy guy wrote down some stories a couple of thousand years back, and then some other people decided his stories were kinda neat-o, and that should be reason enough for anybody to convert.


*Yes, the Scientologists have done this stuff. Yes, they are still working on more bunkers full of El Ron ramblings.

*Yes, the Scientologists have done this stuff. Yes, they are still working on more bunkers full of El Ron ramblings.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/South_Park_Xenu.jpg

Seems legitimate to me.

That and the huge number of textual inconsistencies between the various surviving manuscripts--there are more variants between the surviving manuscripts than there are actual words in the NT. Most of those variants are simple errors in transcription, but there are more than a few changes that were put in for doctrinal and political reasons.

One of the biggest mistranslations in the Old Testament was in the Ten Commandments themselves. It should read “Thou Shalt Not Murder”, instead of Thou Shalt not Kill, but when they were translating this in the Middle Ages it got screwed up. I wonder if, given the Papacies feelings about feudalism and tournaments at the time if it wasn’t messed up on purpose though.

The documentary is closing now. . . just ended actually.

The documents that were found were amazing. It seems as credible as any other gospel. But one can not confirm anything without any less then a time machine.

In regard as this being the true word, it is as credible as the other gospels.

Most people do not relize that the Bible, as we know it, was selected from appocimatly 34 (now 35, with the Judas story). Some of the stranger ones involve many different situations, completely different and unusual from the stories from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Other issues are the dating of the writings. There is always the issue of the telephone situation. The longer from the actual times of the events, the stories can become more and more fabricated. This isnt saying that the original gospels arent fabricated, because the original gospels vary in themselves to that it is almost deffinate that there was some fabrications due to the point of veiws of the authors.

Returning to the issue at hand, The Gospel According to Judas. The gospel has been authenticated to the 3rd century thanks to the miracles of modern science, so we know that it is not a forgery. Taking into account that was insulted by a bishop in the 2nd century, we can assume that the original was before 180 A.D.

The major issue discussed in the gospel is the Last Supper and the Days leading up the Betreyal in the Forest. The gospel states that it was needed for Judas' actions in betraying Christ. Judas was accually directed to betray Jesus infront of the Apposels by Jesus himself. The gospel states that Judas was destined to betray Christ and to be hated by all others because he was seemingly above them. He understood what they did not.

Now, other gospels have never viewed Judas as a hero, and can this radical new view be accepted?
In my eyes as an amatuer Historian, I view it to be plausible. Your oppinion is yours to hold.

i thought they did a good job in explaining what was in it, why it was gnostic, why it was radical, what the heresy was, how it came to be supressed.

that "sitting in a safe deposit box for 16 years" thing was pretty upsetting though

COMMENTARY: For almost 2,000 years now, many people have accepted the four "gospels" ( Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ) as the only gospels. Now, with the discovery of "The Gospel of Judas," and the Nag Hammadi documents, it appears that there is far more to primitive Christianity than was ever suspected. Truly fascinating!

I'd love to know what you, especially Christians, think about this.



I don't particularly think much about it at all, besides its over-hype... This Gospel has been known about for centuries... It was one of the many rejected for having been perverted by the 2nd Century Gnositcs, and there is little new about it.

You have to kind of take it into the proper perspective. The "Gospel" of Judas was written well over a hundred years after the death of Christ. Assuming that you are using the approximate period of time suggested by Irenaeus, whom referenced the work (approx. 180 A.D.) in a criticism of people whom he considered heretics of his time. The "Gospel" was one of many alternate "Gospels" and religious letters written by gnostics and Cainanites and others of that time. It espouses a particular religious philosphy that has been supplanted by a more orthodox version of Christianity long ago. I don't think you can even remotely consider it as a book of the Bible. But as a historical tool it can be invaluable and offers many insights as to the many diverse factions within early Christianity.

Assuming such things interest you, I mean.

It was apparently very clear that a number of women were a large part in the ministry of Jesus and yet they have almost no say in the Bible, or have their influence diminished. I would call that the losing side of a power struggle. Paul was very much in favour of putting women in their place, despite the fact that Jesus’ female followers were the only ones at his tomb keeping vigil.

You may find this to be of interest.

http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/marygosp.htm

This is one of the herises of arrius a false gosple written by a false teacher influenced buy the devil. it was ultimitly dismised in the first catinumical council.

well, well, well...I guess I'll throw in my 2 bits, too.

This is all very interesting. Even more interesting, I just stumbled across this thread after reading the NatGeo online article on Judas.

It seems likely enough that Judas may have been part of God's plan. What seems a lot less likely is what Jesus supposedly revealed to Judas, which pretty much says that the entire Old Testament is junk.

We must also note that while some Gosples are more reliable than others, all of them require some faith in God. The important thing is to remember that Jesus died for us.

You may find this to be of interest.

http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/marygosp.htm

Interestingly enough, the Quran had an entire book dedicated to Mary.

Short version:

Interesting? Yes. Bible? No.

Watched the show and found it intresting. Is it going to throw Christianity into chaos? Nope. I did find the commens of the precher fellow funny as it was basically fingers in his ears and saying "lalalalala"

Who knows? Overall can't hurt. Debate is good in such matters.