Magdlyn

So, you are just speculating. "Getting wind" of something written by a liberal paper, would this shake the faith of the Christians you seem to be speaking for? Or are you just speaking for yourself?


How can you speak for "most Christians"?

So you are speculating again.

"most Christians are very likely"? Have you heard this in church or in many homes of Christians in your town, or in Christian publications? I just wonder where you are getting this info about "most Christians."

Phlox Pyros

The ancient orthodox church father Irenaus knew of and condemned the Gospel of Judas (recently rediscovered) as heresy in 180A.D.. This belief would have stayed with orthodox Christianity until today. This is why I can speak of "most Christians". Go out and test knowledgeable Christians and see what kind of reaction you get, and you will find out if my generalization of "most Christians" is correct.

Magdlyn

I highly doubt "most Christians" have heard of Irenaus, however! And beliefs vary much even between the "orthodox." Catholic, Greek Orthodox, liberal Christians, Bible Belt fundies, I figure there is such a range of interest and understanding of the subject, it is impossible to generalize as you do so blithely.


Earlier you were talking about "most Christians" being disturbed by the media. Now you are talking about "knowledgable Christians." One would hope "knowledgable Christians" would depend on more than a few newspaper stories or TV news soundbites on which to base their faith. It seems you are shifting the goal posts. Who exactly are you worried for here?

Phlox Pyros

You are not reading context.

If you do not believe me about the Gospel of Judas, then take if from someone who worked on the Gospel of Judas, Craig Evans, so you and others do not continue to spread misinformation:

Gospel of Judas

Also, have a look at the commentary of a respected online blogger:

Gnosticism and the Jews

DavidfromTexas

Much of this gets into what the definition of a "Christian" truly is... If people are Christians in name only, then what does that really mean?

The Judas controversy has not been bothersome to me in any way, except to see the continuing misinformation put forth by the media and others regarding what "Christians" supposedly believe about Judas. The Bible is quite clear about the role of Judas, yet the media commonly fails to represent correctly what the Bible says regarding Judas.


Ignorance does not define a Christian.

It is not true that "what made it into the Bible was decided in the fourth century". The canonical gospels and the other writings that would later be referred to as the canon were circulating widely among the churches long before the 4th century. The heretical writings of the period, such as the "gospel" of Judas, had been rejected by Christians long before the 4th century. The canon basically reflected what was commonly being circulated and read among all of the churches. To say that "what made it into the Bible was decided in the fourth century" is misleading, and gives your friends even more reason to doubt the already shaky ground they apparently currently stand on.

This is the real reason that controversies such as the "gospel" of Judas pop up during this time of year... It is aimed at ignorant people who call themselves Christians. It is designed to cause doubt among vast numbers of people who cannot discern when they are being hoodwinked.


Church on the offensive?

What and who are you talking about?

This is yet another problem of misidentification and mischaracterization. I see no evidence that the "Church" has been "on the offensive here"... Quite the contrary, the Church rests secure in the knowledge and truth of the grace of God the Father, and of our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

Have you actually read the so-called "gospel" of Judas? I have, and it is laughable (literally). http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/l...pelofJudas.pdf It is easy to see that it is a gnostic writing that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Magdlyn

Context where?

I have read this before. What misinformation am I spreading? What are you saying that you want me to "believe?"

Evans in that article says GJudas provides us with impt info about Sethian Gnosticism and early Christianities. I agree with that. But he also assumes that the canonical gospels provide "authentic, accurate" information about historical Jesus and Judas, which is laughable.

Then he contradicts his own dismissal of the value of GJudas by saying it may spur us to "ask new questions about why Judas betrayed Jesus and exactly how he did so." Non-canonical writings "offer important assistance in...NT interpretation." I agree with this to a point. I am not particularly invested in NT interpretation, but more in the history of all early Christianities, those strains that "won" and those that "lost" but are now being rediscovered to our benefit.

Then he concludes rather lamely in footnote #8, "Judas is indeed a man of mystery."

Jack the Bodiless

There seems to be a major outbreak of the "No True Christian" fallacy around here.

The gnostics WERE Christians.

Magdlyn

:thumbs:

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't think they're irked about the discovery per se. They're irked that the media is not clearly reporting it as "heretical" and "false," which, of course, would be irresponsible editorializing. I also think that they have been reasonably consistent in reporting that GJudas is Gnostic (and at odds with the Canonicals) but it is not the media's job to make judgement calls as to which sects were right or wrong.
There is nothing in that NYT quote which attempts to tell Christians what they "should believe." It simply reports (entirely accurately) what conclusions many Christians have already come to. Everything in that quote is factually correct and nothing in it amounts to an espousal of any particular view or an attempted directive as to what Christians should think about GJudas. I'm sorry you don't like the facts but it's silly to complain about a newspaper simply reporting what is true. Do you think the NYT should hide the news?

Diogenes the Cynic

This is a pure example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. You're also completely wrong in your last assertion. The media has been completely consistent in reporting what the Canonicals say about Judas. There wouldn't be any juice in the story if GJudas didn't contradict the Canonicals. That contradiction IS the story (as far as the media is concerned...not so much for real scholars).
Yes it is. That's when it was finally officially decided (by a vote) which books were "inspired" and which ones weren't. There was no universal agreement before Nicea.
So? There was still no universal agreement as to a Canon.
This is totally false. Many non-Canonical Gospels were used by Christians into the 3rd Century. The Gnostics were Christians. Your attempts to define them as non-Christian because they don't agree with the sect that won is fallacious and evasive.
Not all. Some.
You are wrong. The Canon was decided in the 4th Century. Period.
This is just weird paranoia. I don't suppose you have any evidence to support this oddball theory?
Would you like some more sugar in that porridge? The Gnostics were Orthodox Christians. It's easy to see that the Canonical Gospels have nothing to do with real Christianity. See how easy that is? Orthodoxy and heresy are completely relative, subjective and arbitrary terms. They have no more inherent, objective meaning than "left and right." You're proving my point that what Christians really seemed upset about is that the media is not promoting a particular, doctrinal agenda towards GJudas. I wish there was a vaccine for CPC.