Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Phlox Pyros · 04-19-2006, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Hurling the word "heretical" at it is meaningless since all that really means is "I don't believe it."

It was used to point out that modern Orthodox Christians will not believe that the Gospel of Judas has anything to do with them. Why should they be "irked" about its discovery?

Quote:

I also haven't seen the media "trying to tell Christians what they should believe." It seems to me that the ones doing that are the Christians who have taken it upon themselves to decide what is "heretical" and what is not.

Here is one quote from the media that may "irk" them...

Quote:

Originally Posted by New York Times

As the findings have trickled down to churches and universities, they have produced a new generation of Christians who now regard the Bible not as the literal word of God, but as a product of historical and political forces that determined which texts should be included in the canon, and which edited out.

For that reason, the discoveries have proved deeply troubling for many believers.

Many will read this as the media telling them that they should find the Gospel of Judas disturbing and that they should follow this "new generation of Christians" in not regarding the Bible as the literal word of God.

Magdlyn · 04-19-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Yes, I dimly recall a thriller-type story (made into a film IIRC) in which the world was stunned by the discovery of a "Fifth Gospel" which contradicted the others.

...There are how many Gospels already? And, other than featuring some sort of preacher-guy named "Jesus" and some shared supporting characters, what do they all agree on?

There are at least 30. Only 4 made it into the canon, b/c there are 4 winds and 4 corners of the earth.

Does anyone have any links to quotes of fundies getting their panties in a twist over GJudas? I would be interested in hearing exactly what they are saying.

Phlox Pyros · 04-19-2006, 04:46 AM

By the way, it appears to be a modern myth that the gospels were decided by the Councel of Nicea, but everyone is taking it at face value from the fictional DaVinci code without looking into it for themselves.

Magdlyn · 04-19-2006, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Here is one quote from the media that may "irk" them...

[NYT's quote]

Many will read this as the media telling them that they should find the Gospel of Judas disturbing and that they should follow this "new generation of Christians" in not regarding the Bible as the literal word of God.

Do fundies read the NYTs and let it tell them what to believe? Do you have people actually saying to you: "I am a devout Christian but the NYT's article has made me want to follow a new generation of skeptical Christians"? In other words, does the media reportage disturb them, or just the fact of the discovery and publication?

mit · 04-19-2006, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

It might be considered officially "heretical", but actually haven't there been Christian thinkers - right up to modern times - who did think that Judas was simply enacting God's plan? No Judas = no crucifixion = no Resurrection, which is the important thing.

I went to a catholic school and I seem to dimly remember some sympathy for Judas by the Brothers as he believed that he was doing what Jesus wanted

mit · 04-19-2006, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

By the way, it appears to be a modern myth that the gospels were decided by the Councel of Nicea, but everyone is taking it at face value from the fictional DaVinci code without looking into it for themselves.

Do you have a link? I admit that I thought it was the council and this was before the Da Vinci code.

MIT

Phlox Pyros · 04-19-2006, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mit

Do you have a link? I admit that I thought it was the council and this was before the Da Vinci code.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

There are lists of the biblical canon earlier than the council of Nicea, and the 4 gospels were set off from other "gospels" very early on. The 4 were considered as the texts that were handed down by tradition, so the other "gospels" would mostly be rejected from the beginning.

Phlox Pyros · 04-19-2006, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

Do fundies read the NYTs and let it tell them what to believe?

I doubt that most "fundies" read the NYT because of its obvious liberal bent, but when things like I quoted are written, they are sure to get wind of them from those who do read it.

Quote:

Do you have people actually saying to you: "I am a devout Christian but the NYT's article has made me want to follow a new generation of skeptical Christians"? In other words, does the media reportage disturb them, or just the fact of the discovery and publication?

The discovery means nothing to most Christians. I would imagine that it "irks" them that the media strongly protrays the gospel as something that they and others should believe in. Since most Christians have a sincere belief that they are trying to "save" other people, they are very likely frustrated that others may believe the media hype over a gnostic gospel that is just like the many others that already exist but they fail to mention. After all, many in this forum have already been asking whether it should upset Christianity...the medias hype is working on some, it seems.

WishboneDawn · 04-19-2006, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howay the Toon

I was highly amused by certain Christians dismissing the Gospel of Judas with no hint of irony on the grounds that:

It was written decades after the supposed events and

It was clearly written to promote the views of a particular sect.

The christians I know barely raised an eyebrow at the gospel of Judas precisely because they knew the views above \were true for the four gospels as well. But I'm in with a rare group of christians.

Magdlyn · 04-19-2006, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mit

Do you have a link? I admit that I thought it was the council and this was before the Da Vinci code.

MIT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Quote:

Irenaeus of Lyons: c. 185, claimed that there were exactly four Gospels, no more and no less, as a touchstone of orthodoxy. ...

Codex Claromontanus canon [10]: c. 250, a page found inserted into a 6th Century copy of the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews, has the 27-book OT plus Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1-2,4 Maccabees, Barnabas, Hermas and the 27-book NT plus 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter but missing Philippians, 1-2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews.

Eusebius: c. 300, listed a New Testament canon in his Ecclesiastical History 3.3 and 3.25 [11]: Recognized are four Gospels, Acts, 10 traditional Letters of Paul, Pastoral Epistles, 1st Peter, 1st John; Disputed are Didache, Barnabas, Hermas, Diatessaron, Gospel of the Hebrews, Hebrews, Acts of Paul, James, 2nd Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation, Apocalypse of Peter; Rejected are Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Matthias, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and unnamed others...

Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, was one of the first synods that set out to judge which books were to be read aloud in churches. The decrees issued by the thirty or so clerics attending were called canons. Canon 59 decreed that only canonical books should be read, but no list was appended in the Latin and Syriac manuscripts recording the decrees. The list of canonical books, Canon 60 [14], sometimes attributed to the Synod of Laodicea is a later addition according to most scholars and has a 22 book OT and 26-book NT (excludes Revelation).

Athanasius: in 367, in Festal Letter 39 [15] listed a 22 book OT and 27-book NT and 7 books not in the canon but to be read: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Didache, and the Pastor (probably Hermas). If you ignore the additional books to be read and exclusion of Esther from the canon, this list is the same as the modern Protestant canon and so Athanasius is often considered the father of the modern Protestant canon.

Note that Athanasius was favored over Arius at the Council of Nicea on the nature of Jesus Christ, which was what the council set out to determine in 325.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-19-2006, 04:46 AM	#13
Phlox Pyros Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: 7th Heaven Posts: 406	By the way, it appears to be a modern myth that the gospels were decided by the Councel of Nicea, but everyone is taking it at face value from the fictional DaVinci code without looking into it for themselves.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.