Gospel of Judas

[Hyacinth42]

I heard about the "Gospel of Judas" not too long ago, and I was wondering if any of you had heard about it/read it/what your opions were :) I haven't read it myself (The PDF file I found online never loaded), but, correct me if I'm wrong, from what I've heard, it was considered sacrilegious by the church, it was thought that all copies had been destroyed, and then in 1970, they found a copied version in Egypt... It changed hands, and nothing was done to translate it until 2000, and National Geographic just revealed the translated version last month... Well, the church had them destroyed for obvious reasons, one of which, is that the book said that Jesus told Judas to kill him... Now, I don't know the Christian religion very well, but I know that the book says the exact opposite happened from what the church has been saying happened... So what do you guys think?

[Bakiryu]

I heard about it from my father along with the Etipan bibble that predates chirst by a few hundred years. He said it proves that Jesus is not god. I wish i had a copy of it, I've always liked Judas.:)

[Logos]

I haven't read it myself (The PDF file I found online never loaded)
It loaded fine for me here :)
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/document.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf
.
.
.

[Bakiryu]

Thank YOU LOGOS!

[Gorilla King]

Gnostic writing. The Gnostics taught that matter was essentially evil and that the ultimate goal was to escape the bondage of matter and enter the spirit realm. Nothing anywhere else in the Bible supports this. That's why it was deemed heretical and not accepted into the canon of scripture. The only thing this teaches us is that there is such a thing as false teaching.

[Dark Star]

Wait, wait wait....It was written BEFORE the Bible was compiled, so how the hell would 'nothing in the Bible supports this' be a reason for it not being accepted into the canon of the scripture? By definition, that would have been accepted in the Bible if they didn't decide it was 'heretical'.

And for that matter, the reason most of the Gnostic texts weren't accepted into the canon had nothing to do with philosophical differences; it was primarily because they didn't deal with the Passion of the Christ and dealt with teachings or other biographical details instead and they wanted the focus to be on his sacrifice.

[MaryLupin]

If you want to understand the impact of the gnostic gospels the very best place to start is with Elaine Pagels. She takes a profoundly scholarly approach to a very touchy subject. She has a book called The Gnostic Gospels. Also there is a web site where you can read what she (and other scholars) have to say about the Gospel of Judas. The site loads a video so it takes a little time.

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/gospel/video.html?fs=www9.nationalgeographic.com&fs=mountain.nationalgeographic.com

[Gorilla King]

Wait, wait wait....It was written BEFORE the Bible was compiled, so how the hell would 'nothing in the Bible supports this' be a reason for it not being accepted into the canon of the scripture? By definition, that would have been accepted in the Bible if they didn't decide it was 'heretical'.

And for that matter, the reason most of the Gnostic texts weren't accepted into the canon had nothing to do with philosophical differences; it was primarily because they didn't deal with the Passion of the Christ and dealt with teachings or other biographical details instead and they wanted the focus to be on his sacrifice.

You think that the bible didn't exist as such until the council of Nicea right? You've been lied too again. The canonical scripture which we have today (with two exceptions) was already accepted before the end of the first century AD. In order to qualify as canonical it had to:

-have been written by one of the apostles or one who had learned from the apostles directly

-have been accepted by the church at large

-have been consistent with the rest of scripture

The Gospel of Judas fits none of these. Any attempt to frame it as legit is entirely bogus. In fact the only people who give it any credence are those who are antagonistic towards Christianity and will grasp at anything that will justify their beliefs regardless of how poor the textual and historical evidence stands up.

[Pendragon]

One simple question. As all four Gospels in the Bible agree that he hanged himself, when did he write said gospel? And if he felt that he was justified in writing it and do so before the crucifixion, why the suicide? It does beg the question. This is neither saying that the book is true or false, just a question.

I look at it like this: were I convinced that someone I had been closely involved with was totally wrong, I would feel betrayed myself. I would need no offer of money to turn them in. And if in the aftermath they were killed, I might remember the good times, but I could not feel responsibe for their death. They would have brought that on themselves.

Question two is how it could predate the Bible, or rather the scrolls upon which the Bible was written. Matthew, and John would have certainly been at the crucifixion, and were Judas' fellow diciples. Mark and Luke had to get their information from others.

[Turk]

One simple question. As all four Gospels in the Bible agree that he hanged himself, when did he write said gospel? And if he felt that he was justified in writing it and do so before the crucifixion, why the suicide? It does beg the question. This is neither saying that the book is true or false, just a question.

Very true. I think it's just a lie of missionaries to confuse other people's minds and create doubts like "what if it's true?". In fact they even kept showing it in Turkey, like it's true.

[Gorilla King]

Well the thing about the Gnostics is they were convinced they had secret knowledge and this was a part of their "secret" texts. And it was written in the second century AD just like all the other pseudo gospels (gospel of Mary, Peter, etc.)

[Dark Star]

You think that the bible didn't exist as such until the council of Nicea right? You've been lied too again. The canonical scripture which we have today (with two exceptions) was already accepted before the end of the first century AD. In order to qualify as canonical it had to:

-have been written by one of the apostles or one who had learned from the apostles directly

-have been accepted by the church at large

-have been consistent with the rest of scripture

The Gospel of Judas fits none of these. Any attempt to frame it as legit is entirely bogus. In fact the only people who give it any credence are those who are antagonistic towards Christianity and will grasp at anything that will justify their beliefs regardless of how poor the textual and historical evidence stands up.

Seeing as we know that none of the Gospels were written by the apostles, I have some serious issue with these claims from the start and doubt the validity of the others. I've also met Christians who will accept the Gnostic gospels and Gnostics certainly don't tend to be 'antagonistic toward Christianity'.

[Dark Star]

One simple question. As all four Gospels in the Bible agree that he hanged himself, when did he write said gospel? And if he felt that he was justified in writing it and do so before the crucifixion, why the suicide? It does beg the question. This is neither saying that the book is true or false, just a question.

Much like the Canonical gospels, it was not written by the person it was named after. It was meant to tell the story and give info from Judas' side, so it was named after him.

That would explain your confusion about those, such as dating John first. The Gospel of John is probably the latest dated (canonical) Gospel from somewhere between 70-100 CE.

[Gorilla King]

Seeing as we know that none of the Gospels were written by the apostles, I have some serious issue with these claims from the start and doubt the validity of the others. I've also met Christians who will accept the Gnostic gospels and Gnostics certainly don't tend to be 'antagonistic toward Christianity'.

John was an apostle. ;)

Besides, I said "or learned from the apostles directly." You can doubt all you want. I've studied the early church.

[Gorilla King]

Much like the Canonical gospels, it was not written by the person it was named after. It was meant to tell the story and give info from Judas' side, so it was named after him.

You can stop spreading misinformation anytime now. The vast majority of scholars agree that the gospels were written by who they claimed to be written by. Given that the people in question were still alive at the time of their writing, you don't think they'd see these stories supposedly written by them and say, "hey! I didn't write that!"?

[weepingforloman]

The Gospel of Judas proves nothing. The canonical gospels prove nothing. It is still a matter of faith.

[Niamh]

The gospal of Judas is a 4th century papyrus(in greek i think) and was discovered in the same part of Egypt, and is the same date, as many of the Gospals on display in the Chester Betty Library in Dublin.

[kari]

I recently read The Secret Magdalene. It was a very good book, and explained the gnostic beliefs very well. I have read about it online before, but hadn't had it put to me in such an understandable manner prior to this book. It is about Mary's life, told from her point of view. I have to say, it really does make you wonder. Although, from the things I have read on gnosticism...I don't at all find it to be beliefs that would tear down Christianity. For example, I find it very inspiring and uplifting to hear these accounts or read these manuscripts that place a female in such a position. As a woman...that shows me something about God. Also, about matter being evil...I am not sure I understood that in what I have read. From my understanding, the secret knowledge is to be able to see who you are, and the world around you (basically through different eyes...to understand your divinity, to understand what exactly the Kingdom of God is). I have also come to understand that there is no evil, but of course there are people that do evil actions...which are done in ignorance, only because they lack that secret knowledge. Anyways....I am of course no expert...but just thought I might add to the info, from what I have read and understood.
kari

[Gorilla King]

I recently read The Secret Magdalene. It was a very good book, and explained the gnostic beliefs very well. I have read about it online before, but hadn't had it put to me in such an understandable manner prior to this book. It is about Mary's life, told from her point of view. I have to say, it really does make you wonder. Although, from the things I have read on gnosticism...I don't at all find it to be beliefs that would tear down Christianity. For example, I find it very inspiring and uplifting to hear these accounts or read these manuscripts that place a female in such a position. As a woman...that shows me something about God. Also, about matter being evil...I am not sure I understood that in what I have read. From my understanding, the secret knowledge is to be able to see who you are, and the world around you (basically through different eyes...to understand your divinity, to understand what exactly the Kingdom of God is). I have also come to understand that there is no evil, but of course there are people that do evil actions...which are done in ignorance, only because they lack that secret knowledge. Anyways....I am of course no expert...but just thought I might add to the info, from what I have read and understood.
kari

Well then you might also be interested to know that gnosticism taught is was impossible for a woman to enter heaven until she became a man.

[Gorilla King]

The Gospel of Judas proves nothing. The canonical gospels prove nothing. It is still a matter of faith.

That's not true. The canonical gospels can prove quite a lot. When coupled with bits and pieces of secular history from the time you can begin to see the historicity of the events described in the gospels.

[kari]

Yes, I have read that part....that is a bit weird for me. I am not saying I believe it all or not. To me, that line in the manuscript didn't seem to go along with others. To be honest, when it comes to religion, and how so many different sects tell you so much, down to details about what happens when you die...things like that...I have just come to an understanding, that you are not suppose to know it all. The idea of willing anything in your life is also part of gnosticism. What happens in your life is basically because of what you think in your mind, thoughts are reflected in your life. The Secret Magdalene also explained that Jesus was not healing others, but getting them to believe he was casting out demons (which He also said there wasn't demons), so in turn, they were really actually healing themselves (the same idea of willing what you want in your life). The secret knowledge was that you were divine, you are a part of God (rather than having God dwell in you, every person, all the things on earth...are a piece of God). Obviously, looking at it that way, also gives you the idea that you are a bit more glorious (powerful, however you look at it) than you might otherwise believe.
kari

[kari]

Oh yeah, and about the "secret" knowledge, from my understanding...it wasn't purposely kept as secret, as someone had mentioned. From what I have read, and my understanding of it...that was Jesus' message, and it was horribly misunderstood. At least in The Secret Magdalen (which I know is written as fictional material), Jesus' was portrayed to be desperately trying to do so...spread the message that we have divinity within ourselves, the kingdom of God within us, around us...but people just got hung up on viewing Him as a healer, prevented Him from trying to get His message across (that and that it is kind of hard to understand second hand I guess). Anyways...if you have questions, I think reading that book is very helpful to understand.
kari

[Gorilla King]

Which book? Besides, what would someone living in the second century know about Jesus' intention over a hundred years earlier? I think Occam's Razor applies here. The simplest explanation and the one for which there is the most evidence is that the traditional four gospels is exactly what Jesus meant to communicate. Everything else is just wild and unfounded speculation.

[NickAdams]

One simple question. As all four Gospels in the Bible agree that he hanged himself, when did he write said gospel? And if he felt that he was justified in writing it and do so before the crucifixion, why the suicide? It does beg the question. This is neither saying that the book is true or false, just a question.


Even more interesting with the account of his death in Acts.

[weepingforloman]

I recently read The Secret Magdalene. It was a very good book, and explained the gnostic beliefs very well. I have read about it online before, but hadn't had it put to me in such an understandable manner prior to this book. It is about Mary's life, told from her point of view. I have to say, it really does make you wonder. Although, from the things I have read on gnosticism...I don't at all find it to be beliefs that would tear down Christianity. For example, I find it very inspiring and uplifting to hear these accounts or read these manuscripts that place a female in such a position. As a woman...that shows me something about God. Also, about matter being evil...I am not sure I understood that in what I have read. From my understanding, the secret knowledge is to be able to see who you are, and the world around you (basically through different eyes...to understand your divinity, to understand what exactly the Kingdom of God is). I have also come to understand that there is no evil, but of course there are people that do evil actions...which are done in ignorance, only because they lack that secret knowledge. Anyways....I am of course no expert...but just thought I might add to the info, from what I have read and understood.
kari

I am afraid that the very notion of the "secret knowledge" of the Gnostics is the fatal flaw. It cannot be Christianity, because Christianity is first and foremost based on the redemptive grace of Christ (varying from denomination to denomination; Catholics and Orthodox especially have a slightly different read on it), but the Gnostics believed that their secret knowledge was necessary. I believe the elevation of Mary Magdalene was somewhat of an attempt to combine elements of the whole fertility/femininity goddess thing into Christianity. The same thing happened in early Spain: they thought the Trinity was the Father, the Mother, and the Son.

[kari]

Interesting that you would mention this. After reading that book about mary's life, I was very intruiged by all of this. Again, I don't know how truthful the info in it was, compared to the gnostics beliefs...but from what I had read online, it seemed to be on the mark. This book talked about Jesus being one of the "inner nazoreans", a person that knew the secret knowledge, that knew themselves and divinity. People began calling Him the messiah (just as they had John the Baptist...before he was killed, who was also considered one of the "inner nazoreans", who was trying to do the same thing Jesus was, spreading that "secret" message). Jesus found Himself, eventually wanted by Pilate, and decided to use that to His advantage. He knew of a messiah that was prophesied, and therefore basically "set up" everything from there...and that was His intention, to be crucified, letting Himself fill that role for people that were seeking a messiah. Anyways...His reason for doing so was so that maybe people would be able to hear His message more clearly, or so that they would have paied more attention to what He had been truly saying. I was speaking to my husband about this, who thinks it is all strange (probably the norm for most Christians I would think), but I oddly found it to be not much different. In a way, it could be viewed similarly, Jesus being sacrificed for our sins...in a different interpretation, such as Jesus going through what He did to give us that knowledge, to save ourselves from sinning (which was done because we lacked that knowledge). There was a section in the book that explained about this inner knowledge, and that few find it, and that there are many others that need to have a priest, some kind of an authority (maybe messiah could fill that spot as well) that would give them rules, laws, whatever. That there are people that need that. About Mary Magdalene, I don't necessarily agree that is why she is being put in the light now. If you go throughout history in Christianity (at least my understanding and experience), women are not seen under the same light as men. If you just read through scriptures, you can see that too. At least that is what I see in certain stories. I am drawn to a lot of this gnostic belief, but the part that I have trouble getting over is that your mind can will whatever, and everything that happens in your life is a reflection of that. That belief bothers me some. I don't think I could come around to believing that 100%. Of course your thoughts impact your life (such as a postive/negative personality), but I have a hard time believing people that are sick and ill, happened because they put it on themselves. Also, what about fears? Wouldn't you automatically experience all of your fears if that was so? Anyways...I am straying!
Also, about that part where women have to become a man to entire into the kingdom of God...I was thinking that maybe that wasn't literal. I think I had read something (that either told me, or triggered me to think on this), that back then women weren't thought to have much of a thought or idea, or anything to say that was worth hearing. Women weren't thought to need to be educated. Maybe a woman becoming a man was in that sense (I think that was mentioned slightly in The Secret Magdalene). A woman needs to learn, seek, educate herself....in other words, I guess, find and discover that "inner nazorean" or "secret knowledge" to enter into the kingdom of God. And maybe saying to become "MAN" was the only way they knew to really express that? Just a thought! (Although....I am pretty sure it wasn't mine to start with! LOL!)
kari

[Gorilla King]

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to wrap your head around gnostic beliefs. Just another heresy like the Arian controversy.

[weepingforloman]

The Christian tradition believes that Christ was unique. Not that others could be like Him, or that He simply stumbled onto some new way of thinking. Just please understand that Gnosticism is very different and distinct from Christianity.

[kari]

I do understand that they are different. Just as people can understand what makes sects within Christianity different. All I was saying was that a lot of the things people bring up to say it is completely different than Christianity seem to be not THAT different, just interpretted differently. Mainly people mention Jesus' roll in Christianity, and to me, it is just another interpretation of Him. Even from the gnostics view, I don't think Jesus was just any man that stumbled onto something. I don't think that interpretation of Jesus lessens who He was or how important He was at all. Why is that to think of Jesus not as a God, or without Godly "powers"...means He wasn't an important roll in the ideas of religion, or that His importance is lessened?
Kari

[Gorilla King]

I do understand that they are different. Just as people can understand what makes sects within Christianity different. All I was saying was that a lot of the things people bring up to say it is completely different than Christianity seem to be not THAT different, just interpretted differently. Mainly people mention Jesus' roll in Christianity, and to me, it is just another interpretation of Him. Even from the gnostics view, I don't think Jesus was just any man that stumbled onto something. I don't think that interpretation of Jesus lessens who He was or how important He was at all. Why is that to think of Jesus not as a God, or without Godly "powers"...means He wasn't an important roll in the ideas of religion, or that His importance is lessened?
Kari

Because as Paul said, if Jesus didn't die on the cross and wasn't resurrected then we are to be pitied above all men. Jesus is Christianity, It's not the extra biblical doctrines, it's not the churches, it's Jesus. If I didn't believe with all of me that Jesus was who He said He was and did what the apostles said He did then I wouldn't be a Christian. Period.

[weepingforloman]

I do understand that they are different. Just as people can understand what makes sects within Christianity different. All I was saying was that a lot of the things people bring up to say it is completely different than Christianity seem to be not THAT different, just interpretted differently. Mainly people mention Jesus' roll in Christianity, and to me, it is just another interpretation of Him. Even from the gnostics view, I don't think Jesus was just any man that stumbled onto something. I don't think that interpretation of Jesus lessens who He was or how important He was at all. Why is that to think of Jesus not as a God, or without Godly "powers"...means He wasn't an important roll in the ideas of religion, or that His importance is lessened?
Kari

Because Christ's death is the ultimate expression of God's love for His people. It makes Christ all the more lovely, because He stepped down from His throne of majesty and took on the trappings of mortal flesh-- and allowed Himself, who formed the universe, who set the stars in the sky, to be killed at the hands of a jeering mob. Because Christ died emptying Himself of glory, and took on the curse of God, and allowed Himself to be separated from the Father and the Spirit- unimaginably painful. This is why Christ's divinity is important.

[Pendragon]

Also, about that part where women have to become a man to entire into the kingdom of God...I was thinking that maybe that wasn't literal. I think I had read something (that either told me, or triggered me to think on this), that back then women weren't thought to have much of a thought or idea, or anything to say that was worth hearing. Women weren't thought to need to be educated. Maybe a woman becoming a man was in that sense (I think that was mentioned slightly in The Secret Magdalene). A woman needs to learn, seek, educate herself....in other words, I guess, find and discover that "inner nazorean" or "secret knowledge" to enter into the kingdom of God. And maybe saying to become "MAN" was the only way they knew to really express that? Just a thought! (Although....I am pretty sure it wasn't mine to start with! LOL!)
kariWhoa! They say a woman has to become a man to enter the kingdom of God? That ought to send up a red flag right there. What reason is given for this statement? Jesus said He came to seek and to save that which was lost. In Paul's writings we find him greeting Aquila and Pricillia with the church that is in their house. In the Last 3 Gospels of John we find one address to the elect lady. We find in Acts many believed and it mentions women by that title. Christ certainly went to preach where women were gathered also, and there were women in the Upper Room. I would worry about this.

God Bless

Pen

[kari]

I am not really worried? I never said I really believed all of this. I just find it very intruiging. I do feel there is something in it. I was just more sharing this info, thinking about it is all. I do strongly believe that there was something more to Mary than what has been known...no real "proof" to share, other than a feeling when I first heard. It made me think....ahh, another puzzle piece to the big picture. And if I do believe this about Mary, what harm does it do if in doing so doesn't jeapordize my relationship with God at all? I am a Christian, have been my entire life. Having said that, however, I think that doesn't mean other's views are wrong in comparison. I enjoy learning about others beliefs and finding broad similarities between them and Christianity. I don't believe there to be one "true" church, I don't believe there to be one clear cut explanation of everything as certain churches claim. As long as the church/religion/beliefs lead people to better themselves, and to look towards God...I don't think He would be disappointed. I believe they tie into one another more than some think. I know there are many out there that feel very differently, I was there before myself. I am not in search to change beliefs necessarily. I know who I am, I know God and where I stand with Him...and I am quite happy with my relationship with Him as well. That doesn't mean I will not stumble upon information that will add to that. So no worries!
kari

[Gorilla King]

There's only one Jesus. He doesn't go by the name of Allah or Buddha or Vishnu.

[Pendragon]

I am not really worried? I never said I really believed all of this. I just find it very intruiging. I do feel there is something in it. I was just more sharing this info, thinking about it is all. I do strongly believe that there was something more to Mary than what has been known...no real "proof" to share, other than a feeling when I first heard. It made me think....ahh, another puzzle piece to the big picture. And if I do believe this about Mary, what harm does it do if in doing so doesn't jeapordize my relationship with God at all? I am a Christian, have been my entire life. Having said that, however, I think that doesn't mean other's views are wrong in comparison. I enjoy learning about others beliefs and finding broad similarities between them and Christianity. I don't believe there to be one "true" church, I don't believe there to be one clear cut explanation of everything as certain churches claim. As long as the church/religion/beliefs lead people to better themselves, and to look towards God...I don't think He would be disappointed. I believe they tie into one another more than some think. I know there are many out there that feel very differently, I was there before myself. I am not in search to change beliefs necessarily. I know who I am, I know God and where I stand with Him...and I am quite happy with my relationship with Him as well. That doesn't mean I will not stumble upon information that will add to that. So no worries!
kariNo, you misunderstand me. I didn't mean that it would hurt to know more about any of the women of the Bible. I just wondered about this "a woman must become a man" business. God certainly meets you as you are, and I find nothing in the scripture to say a woman must be transformed bodily to be saved. Back to the subject, this Gospel of Judas is said not to have been written by him but about him, years after the fact. So there is no way to say one way or another about facts contained in it. I think that is why it was not used in the Bible, and would never be. He was dead, and the facts at the time of writing could be only second-hand at best. The records of Matthew and John were written during their life, and John was the only disciple to die of natural causes. John Mark was one of Paul’s converts, and Luke, Paul's personal Physician. As Paul went up to Jerusalem to consult with Peter, James, and John and the others, that would be where Mark and Luke got their information.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I am not really worried? I never said I really believed all of this. I just find it very intruiging. I do feel there is something in it. I was just more sharing this info, thinking about it is all. I do strongly believe that there was something more to Mary than what has been known...no real "proof" to share, other than a feeling when I first heard. It made me think....ahh, another puzzle piece to the big picture. And if I do believe this about Mary, what harm does it do if in doing so doesn't jeapordize my relationship with God at all? I am a Christian, have been my entire life. Having said that, however, I think that doesn't mean other's views are wrong in comparison. I enjoy learning about others beliefs and finding broad similarities between them and Christianity. I don't believe there to be one "true" church, I don't believe there to be one clear cut explanation of everything as certain churches claim. As long as the church/religion/beliefs lead people to better themselves, and to look towards God...I don't think He would be disappointed. I believe they tie into one another more than some think. I know there are many out there that feel very differently, I was there before myself. I am not in search to change beliefs necessarily. I know who I am, I know God and where I stand with Him...and I am quite happy with my relationship with Him as well. That doesn't mean I will not stumble upon information that will add to that. So no worries!
kari

May I say how much I appreciate the quiet, personal tone of this - and the tolerance and respect for others in it? I believe that the credibility of anyone's truth is when she doesn't need to be trumpetting it at every opportunity, but lives it quietly and with integrity.

I've gotten into many a futile dispute with members here of what I see as the "God-Squad" who seem to me to be unable to separate their own egos from their fervently-held beliefs, but it is dogmatists, shouters, salesmen of every stripe who annoy me whether they're attempting to sell me refridgerators or their one and only "Lord."

[Orionsbelt]

Well, Surprise. I have to back up Kari. For me, the Gnostic books are a much more sensible interpretation than the traditional point of view. The council at Nicea was political and hence about power. The fact that spiritual things were on the table is incidental to the establishment of an institution and the why and who of the time. It is a mistake to believe that it logically follows that political decisions make for the best spiritual serving. The majority, the deal cut, the personal agenda.. Nothing new under the sun. However, Christ said things like "I am in him and he is in me"... "he father is in you and you in he" etc. etc. very gnostic kind of stuff. Then there are the three temptations of the Satan and other hints at a Gnostic Christ. This also kind of reaches toward the Christian eastern link that you will hear stories about. Things like Jesus had traveled east etc. I don't think Jesus went east but east may have come to him. Anyway, The notion being that fear and desire bind us to material things. Although I have read Thomas and Judas, I have not heard of the book you had referred so thanks.. I'll have to read it.

[Gorilla King]

Well, Surprise. I have to back up Kari. For me, the Gnostic books are a much more sensible interpretation than the traditional point of view. The council at Nicea was political and hence about power. The fact that spiritual things were on the table is incidental to the establishment of an institution and the why and who of the time. It is a mistake to believe that it logically follows that political decisions make for the best spiritual serving. The majority, the deal cut, the personal agenda.. Nothing new under the sun. However, Christ said things like "I am in him and he is in me"... "he father is in you and you in he" etc. etc. very gnostic kind of stuff. Then there are the three temptations of the Satan and other hints at a Gnostic Christ. This also kind of reaches toward the Christian eastern link that you will hear stories about. Things like Jesus had traveled east etc. I don't think Jesus went east but east may have come to him. Anyway, The notion being that fear and desire bind us to material things. Although I have read Thomas and Judas, I have not heard of the book you had referred so thanks.. I'll have to read it.

The canon was established in the first century, the council of Nicea merely made it official. It's a shame I can't make a sticky of Christian history to cut down on false statements.

[PrinceMyshkin]

"The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of
Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in
particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius). However, due to the machinations of Athanasius and others in his party, many of the Eastern bishops who were pro-Arian, were prevented from reaching the Council until after the vote had been taken. "

Per Wikipedia, my emphasis added. So, politics it was (and has ever been?). If the vote had gone the other way, there would no doubt be equally fervent arguments that Jesus was NOT of the same substance of God. All of these canonical decisions are made by fallible human beings to the best of their understanding and their subjective inclinations. No divinity involved. If these were Divine wishes, then surely no councils would be required but everyone's open mind would be changed at once.

[kari]

No, you misunderstand me. I didn't mean that it would hurt to know more about any of the women of the Bible. I just wondered about this "a woman must become a man" business. God certainly meets you as you are, and I find nothing in the scripture to say a woman must be transformed bodily to be saved. Back to the subject, this Gospel of Judas is said not to have been written by him but about him, years after the fact. So there is no way to say one way or another about facts contained in it. I think that is why it was not used in the Bible, and would never be. He was dead, and the facts at the time of writing could be only second-hand at best. The records of Matthew and John were written during their life, and John was the only disciple to die of natural causes. John Mark was one of Paul’s converts, and Luke, Paul's personal Physician. As Paul went up to Jerusalem to consult with Peter, James, and John and the others, that would be where Mark and Luke got their information.

I completely agree that God made you the way you are on purpose, for a purpose...so therefore, why would He have the need to "change" your gender, literally, for you to be with Him again? That is silly. But I had been explaining how maybe that wasn't suppose to be meant literally. Just as so much in the Bible is not meant to be literal. But I do agree with you.

Kari

[Gorilla King]

"The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of
Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in
particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius). However, due to the machinations of Athanasius and others in his party, many of the Eastern bishops who were pro-Arian, were prevented from reaching the Council until after the vote had been taken. "

Per Wikipedia, my emphasis added. So, politics it was (and has ever been?). If the vote had gone the other way, there would no doubt be equally fervent arguments that Jesus was NOT of the same substance of God. All of these canonical decisions are made by fallible human beings to the best of their understanding and their subjective inclinations. No divinity involved. If these were Divine wishes, then surely no councils would be required but everyone's open mind would be changed at once.

The councils were political. No doubt about it. That's why I'm a protestant and don't subscribe to those extra biblical doctrines. They argued for 300 years over ouisis and homouisis. It's absurd. I'm not an apologist for Christians, I'm an apologist for Christ. But as I said twice now, the canon was decided in the first century, long before the council of Nicea, so that's not particularly relevant.

[kari]

"The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of
Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in
particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted against Arius). However, due to the machinations of Athanasius and others in his party, many of the Eastern bishops who were pro-Arian, were prevented from reaching the Council until after the vote had been taken. "

Per Wikipedia, my emphasis added. So, politics it was (and has ever been?). If the vote had gone the other way, there would no doubt be equally fervent arguments that Jesus was NOT of the same substance of God. All of these canonical decisions are made by fallible human beings to the best of their understanding and their subjective inclinations. No divinity involved. If these were Divine wishes, then surely no councils would be required but everyone's open mind would be changed at once.

I agree with this idea as well. I think that there are many people out there (not saying anyone specific, so no need to come at me in an argument) that take the Bible for being some book that God handed us to follow, therefore...needs NO consideration, nor does anything else need consideration. I wish more people would understand that it is MAN that recorded these things...and no man is perfect. And that it is MAN that compiled the Bible into what it is now, leaving out other manuscripts...for the purpose of keeping it compiled of books that would prevent problems between the churches at the time. Isn't it even worth considering that maybe that was even all intended, and that these newfound manuscripts were purposely (or planned by God) to be hidden, and later revealed, for those that wished to open their minds to different ideas and thoughts? Just things to think about. And why should we only accept on thing, without thought to the others? Simply because that is what we are TOLD is to be ONLy true? (Again, not thought of by everyone...but with my experience, many I have come across).
Kari

[Gorilla King]

I agree with this idea as well. I think that there are many people out there (not saying anyone specific, so no need to come at me in an argument) that take the Bible for being some book that God handed us to follow, therefore...needs NO consideration, nor does anything else need consideration. I wish more people would understand that it is MAN that recorded these things...and no man is perfect. And that it is MAN that compiled the Bible into what it is now, leaving out other manuscripts...for the purpose of keeping it compiled of books that would prevent problems between the churches at the time. Isn't it even worth considering that maybe that was even all intended, and that these newfound manuscripts were purposely (or planned by God) to be hidden, and later revealed, for those that wished to open their minds to different ideas and thoughts? Just things to think about. And why should we only accept on thing, without thought to the others? Simply because that is what we are TOLD is to be ONLy true? (Again, not thought of by everyone...but with my experience, many I have come across).
Kari

It sounds nice and mysterious, but if you actually study why these books were rejected, maybe you wouldn't be turning to them for "secret knowledge." Doesn't the fact that none were written by who they claim to have been written by and the fact that all were written long after the last of the Apostles were dead set off any bells in your mind?

[kari]

[QUOTE=PrinceMyshkin;408799]May I say how much I appreciate the quiet, personal tone of this - and the tolerance and respect for others in it? I believe that the credibility of anyone's truth is when she doesn't need to be trumpetting it at every opportunity, but lives it quietly and with integrity.

QUOTE]

Thanks! I get sick of people acting like I am some crazy head for considering things to be possibly different than what is the norm. I personally think that is what we are suppose to do. What is a bigger purpose of the Spirit, than it being there to help you weed through everything and let you know when you stumble upon something that is truth? I guess it is in my nature to do so...but in truth, I feel that we are not suppose to know everything while on earth. I think there are many amazing things to come, that we are only to know when the time comes, for us to experience it. I was a member of a very strict church, that seemed to have an answer for EVERYTHING (of course thinking itself to be the only true church). I eventually married, (to a man in the military), had two children, and then couldn't look at it through the same eyes. It made me realize a lot! We all grow...or should at least strive to do so!
Kari

[kari]

It sounds nice and mysterious, but if you actually study why these books were rejected, maybe you wouldn't be turning to them for "secret knowledge." Doesn't the fact that none were written by who they claim to have been written by and the fact that all were written long after the last of the Apostles were dead set off any bells in your mind?

I am beginning to see the difference between what you and I do in our "research for the truth".

[kari]

I have been inspired and uplifted, and felt truth in things written in something as simple as a magazine before. Sometimes all it comes down to is how it makes me feel. The Spirit can be quite informative if you listen. Other times, I know I need to pray and ask questions. In those cases, it comes down to the answers I recieve. I don't sit down and do a google on the author, search the publication date...what is the point in that? For myself...seems silly. Like I mentioned, I feel I have a very strong relationship with God...and you saying I need to have bells going off in my head at the date something was written isn't going to make me doubt that. If what you do works for you...great! As for me...I am a bit more interested in what I feel God is trying to personally tell me, rather than what I, myself can find out about it. Really, isn't that what it comes down to?
Kari

[Gorilla King]

I have been inspired and uplifted, and felt truth in things written in something as simple as a magazine before. Sometimes all it comes down to is how it makes me feel. The Spirit can be quite informative if you listen. Other times, I know I need to pray and ask questions. In those cases, it comes down to the answers I recieve. I don't sit down and do a google on the author, search the publication date...what is the point in that? For myself...seems silly. Like I mentioned, I feel I have a very strong relationship with God...and you saying I need to have bells going off in my head at the date something was written isn't going to make me doubt that. If what you do works for you...great! As for me...I am a bit more interested in what I feel God is trying to personally tell me, rather than what I, myself can find out about it. Really, isn't that what it comes down to?
Kari

Sorry, but subjectivism and Christianity don't particularly go together. If God is telling you that pseudo gospels that contradict scripture is truth then something isn't right.

[Orionsbelt]

Interesting that you would mention this. .... There was a section in the book that explained about this inner knowledge, and that few find it, and that there are many others that need to have a priest, some kind of an authority (maybe messiah could fill that spot as well) that would give them rules, laws, whatever. That there are people that need that.....kari

:D ....................

[kari]

Sorry, but subjectivism and Christianity don't particularly go together. If God is telling you that pseudo gospels that contradict scripture is truth then something isn't right.

You don't really get what I am saying. It isn't always about what falls in line with Christianity. It is about what God wants me to know. As for the gospels you are referring to...I have said it several times, I was sharing info, and never specifically said I believe in them. I was learning new info recently about them, and it came up in this thread...so I was sharing what I have understood about gnositicism. What doesn't seem right, for me, is that you are so worried and hung up on what I am believing in, rather than focusing on yourself. If you recall...from scriptures in Bible...you will be judged how you are judged.
Kari

[kari]

oops...LOL! That didn't come out how I meant. You will be judged how you judge.

[Gorilla King]

oops...LOL! That didn't come out how I meant. You will be judged how you judge.

Disputing knowledge and judgment are hardly the same things. And how exactly do you know I'm not concerned about myself? If I've educated myself and can help another believer not to go down false paths then it seems right that I should offer what I know.

[kari]

You aren't coming across to me as disputing knowledge.
Kari

[kari]

Hmmm...I am a bit put off to your response. Is that implying that I have not educated myself? That I am on a false path? Or just about to be on a false path? And that is your disputing of knowledge? Sounds a bit more like judgement. Maybe you should stick to sharing your beliefs, rather than trying to prove someone elses to be wrong.
Kari

[kari]

Anyways...I am onto a new book now! This one is titled Sarah..about Sarah from Genisis...so maybe I will have new things to share from that book in another thread! As for gnosticism...I would have to say I don't know enough about it to say I feel one way or the other for sure. I have yet to come across another book that explains it in more depth. I had fun discussing it though!
Kari

[Gorilla King]

Hmmm...I am a bit put off to your response. Is that implying that I have not educated myself? That I am on a false path? Or just about to be on a false path? And that is your disputing of knowledge? Sounds a bit more like judgement. Maybe you should stick to sharing your beliefs, rather than trying to prove someone elses to be wrong.
Kari

I don't know, have you educated yourself? I'm not interested in proving you wrong, I'm interested in characterizing Jesus and the gospels accurately. I'd like to think that as a theology major I know a thing or two about what is proper teaching and what is and always has been considered heretical. We were commanded to love God with all our minds were we not? Part of that is concerning ourselves with correct teachings. It fact that was the whole reason the epistles were written. Do you suppose the church at Ephesus thought Paul was being judgmental for correcting them?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Hmmm...I am a bit put off to your response. Is that implying that I have not educated myself? That I am on a false path? Or just about to be on a false path? And that is your disputing of knowledge? Sounds a bit more like judgement. Maybe you should stick to sharing your beliefs, rather than trying to prove someone elses to be wrong.
Kari

It is possible you're put off by the same thing I am from those who are out to "educate" the rest of us, that is, the tone of ex cathedra in so much of what they post. Papal infallibility was decreed in the first Vatican Council of 1870 and yet it seems that new popes, equally infallible, are decreed every day. Note that in a subsequent post, Gorilla King writes: "I'd like to think that as a theology major I know a thing or two about what is proper teaching and what is and always has been considered heretical."

It is often the case that majors in whichever discipline take the "thing or two" that they have so recently learned for the whole of what is to be learned - and forget that they are studying in one particular school of many.

And count yourself lucky. In another post, after I had disagreed with him, this "Christian" accused me of being a Nazi!

[MaryLupin]

And count yourself lucky. In another post, after I had disagreed with him, this "Christian" accused me of being a Nazi!

Oh! That is truly delightful! It reminds me of a white man who, angered by a Native American relation of mine (a political protester), yelled, "Why don't you go back to your own country then!"

[PrinceMyshkin]

Oh! That is truly delightful! It reminds me of a white man who, angered by a Native American relation of mine (a political protester), yelled, "Why don't you go back to your own country then!"

Well, I don't know for a fact that Captain Christian knew that I'm a Jew, but being that I took a particularly sharp exception to his flinging that at me - and wrote him to that effect. Several days since, he has yet to reply.

[Gorilla King]

Well, I don't know for a fact that Captain Christian knew that I'm a Jew, but being that I took a particularly sharp exception to his flinging that at me - and wrote him to that effect. Several days since, he has yet to reply.

Ah, mastered the fine art of propaganda, and pandering I see. If you're so put off by Christian teachings then why are you posting in a religion forum? And actually I did respond. Your ability to tell obvious lies is remarkable. Need a reminder?

"Clearly you're the authority on Christianity. :lol: "

[PrinceMyshkin]

Ah, mastered the fine art of propaganda, and pandering I see. If you're so put off by Christian teachings then why are you posting in a religion forum? And actually I did respond. Your ability to tell obvious lies is remarkable. Need a reminder?

"Clearly you're the authority on Christianity. :lol: "

sent privately c/o your name here, July 5, 9:20 pm:

Your last post under Does Science Exclude God evidently put the nail in the coffin as far as that post is concerned. Flinging the Nazi accusation at me says a good deal about how Christian a Christian you are.
No reply on record.

I am hopeful that one of the moderators will note the above offensive comments by you. Whatever sort of Christian you think yourself, you are clearly not a very pleasant person.

[MaryLupin]

If you're so put off by Christian teachings then why are you posting in a religion forum?

Goodness.

First: Religion does not equal Christianity
Second: One can be interested in religion without being religious
Third: This is a forum about literature. This is a thread that is supposed (by rule) to be about religious literature.

[Gorilla King]

sent privately c/o your name here, July 5, 9:20 pm:

Your last post under Does Science Exclude God evidently put the nail in the coffin as far as that post is concerned. Flinging the Nazi accusation at me says a good deal about how Christian a Christian you are.
No reply on record.

I am hopeful that one of the moderators will note the above offensive comments by you. Whatever sort of Christian you think yourself, you are clearly not a very pleasant person.

This coming from the person who calls religious people delusional nuts? You pander to people to garner sympathy and then when you have it you play the "oh poor me card" and go on your passive aggressive attacks.

Have you forgotten already this little gem?

"(For a "so-called" life I would have amended that statement since, once the catechisms or their equivalent have been firmly embedded, that is often the end of independent thinking - which, to me, is indispensable to life.)"

[Logos]

Closed for personal comments/insults.

[Logos]

Oh, and in case you haven't read the rules yet:


In light of the recent increase in the number of posts and references lacking tolerance towards others' views and beliefs, the Religious Texts Forum Rules will be implemented vigorously as of now and only new threads with questions about or directly discussing 'Religious Texts'* will be permitted as per Rule No. 5.

*eg: Torah, Quar'an, Bible(s), Upanishad etc.

Off-topic posts/Posts which are in violation of these rules will be edited/deleted without any further notice and those who persist in a similar vein will be issued Time-Outs as well as infraction points which might lead to temporary or permanent loss of Forum privileges.