Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Furball on April 10, 2006, 01:26:10 PM
-
Anyone else see this programme? very good! quite an eye opener too, as to how early forms of christianity were run.
http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/channel/gospelofjudas/
-
Yep I watched it last night. I enjoyed the entire program except for the closed minded attitude of Dr. Robert Schuller. Yeah I know why he has that attitude but from a purely historical standpoint with no religious undertones. I can't understand his stance of dismissing a historical document just because he doesn't feel that it would give him anything more than the 4 "accepted" gospels. Who knows if there is truth to what was written on the papyrus; being as far removed from that time as we are will never know.
-
I watched it. I also liked it. It was interesting that cherrypicking to support your agenda is not limited to this board. :D
-
Very interesting.
It opens up a real can of worms for the christian community, they have to ask themselves if the new testament is true to the teachings of jesus. I found it particularly interesting where they talked about the one true god versus the god that created earth and the bit about thanksgiving for the bread. There were other extracts which indicated a more spiritual set of teachings as opposed to the more mystical teachings of the bible.
There were more than a few bits that fly in the face of modern christianity.
You have to wonder, if the other gospels that were binned by the early christian leaders would have lead to a different christianity than we see today (what was there... 30 odd dropped?)
-
Remember the old adage, "God didn't fax the bible". Substantial changes take place, especially over 2,000 years.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Remember the old adage, "God didn't fax the bible". Substantial changes take place, especially over 2,000 years.
More like 200 years. Even if he did fax it it would appear that early christian leaders binned 90% of it in favour of what they thought was best taught.
-
those old faxes weren't very reliable & the paper was a fortune
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Remember the old adage, "God didn't fax the bible". Substantial changes take place, especially over 2,000 years.
Eventually, he'll just say "Aw **** it" and turn the etch-o-sketch upside down and give it a good shake. ;)
or... I'd belive such things if I weren't a godless heathen. :)
-
The one I'd really want to read is JC's girlfriend gospel. That Maria girl.
I wonder why it was destroyed.
Bozon
-
It opens up a real can of worms for the christian community, they have to ask themselves if the new testament is true to the teachings of jesus.
What are you saying? We all know that Bible is 100% inerrant with 100% certainty. And I _know_ I'm right. :rolleyes:
-
Seagoon? Reply?
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Yep I watched it last night. I enjoyed the entire program except for the closed minded attitude of Dr. Robert Schuller. Yeah I know why he has that attitude but from a purely historical standpoint with no religious undertones. I can't understand his stance of dismissing a historical document just because he doesn't feel that it would give him anything more than the 4 "accepted" gospels. Who knows if there is truth to what was written on the papyrus; being as far removed from that time as we are will never know.
i thought exactly the same. it also made me think of how the image of judas in the bible has effected anti semitism throughout history, all because of that one man binned 90% of the gospels in favour of teaching a form of christianity which suited him.
it just shows that even with the writing of the bible, people used their personal agendas to crush those with differing beliefs and gain power to the church.
but then, i am very naive towards religion, and i may have misunderstood :)
-
You guys need to get a grip...on some texts on theology and ancient religions. There is nothing "new" about the "Gospel" of Judas.
This is nothing more than one of the Gnostic gospels that were quashed by the early Catholic Church because it was so at odds with the accounts of the Gospels attributed to Jesus' disciples.
Gnosticism: A collective name for a greatly varying and pantheistic-idealistic sect, which flourished from some time before the Christian era down to the fifth century, and which, while borrowing the phraseology and some of the tenets of the chief religions of the day, and especially of Christianity, held matter to be a deterioration of spirit, and the whole universe a depravation of the Deity, and taught the ultimate end of all being to be the overcoming of the grossness of matter and the return to t he Parent-Spirit, which return they held to be inaugurated and facilitated by the appearance of some God-Sent Savior.
-
Hi Diablo,
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Seagoon? Reply?
Sorry I didn't see the thread, I've been sick for the past two days (sat under a massive A/C duct in a tennis shirt for three days straight last week, who'da thunk you'd end up freezing your way through a conference in MISSISSIPPI!) and I'm currently working on half-power, if that. The Iran Nuke thread just about took all of my energy to reply to...
Anyway, look none of this is new, it may be new to a lot of Westerners because Church history has largely been forgotten in the modern world. The reason it's getting a lot of play at the moment is that everyone associated with "Gnostic Gospels" research is riding on the coat-tails of the current Davinci Code bonanza. In the 1980s a similar phenomenon surrounded the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" series and in some respects, Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ cashed in on that movement.
Unfortunately, it's big at the moment, big enough that I agreed to write a review and critique of Dan Brown's book for a Christian magazine to coincide with the release of the movie, just because I know that I'll have to address it with my own congregation anyway.
Anyway, as I said, this is nothing new, its yet another attempt to use ancient Gnosticism, to advance modern agendas. Gnosticism was a pseudo-Christian heresy that sought largely to create a synthesis between Greek Philosophy and Spirituality and the Christian faith. The Greeks in particular objected to the materialism of Christianity. In the Greek worldview that which was material was bad, and that which was spiritual or immaterial was good. In keeping with their philosophy, they preferred a religion in which one advanced beyond the material via enlightenment. The felt that the path to this enlightenment was via the assimilation of the "secret teachings" of various enlightened "masters" - hence their name gnostics from the Greek word for "knowledge." They also tended to reject highly material and to their mind "barbaric" and material religion of the ancient Jews. Therefore gnostics like Marcion dramatically revised the canon of scripture to remove the entire Old Testament and to leave only part of one gospel and some of the Pauline epistles. Additionally many of the various gnostic cults began writing pseudopigrahal "sacred writings" such as the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas to advance their particular theology. The heyday of Gnostic Gospel writing was in the 2nd through 4th centuries.
Even before the end of the first century though, the Apostles were already having to deal with the Greek distaste for the idea that Jesus was bodily resurrected. Keeping the body, "the prisonhouse of the soul" was not good news to the Greeks it was "foolishness" to use Paul's phrase. So we see even in the letters of the Apostles which may be reliably dated to the period between 50-90 AD many attempts to deal with proto-gnosticism and the various heretical beliefs it was advancing. For instance:
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
The specific, and for the Greeks jarring, word John uses is sarx - flesh. For the Greeks the sarx was the fallen or evil component of man, so the idea that a sinless savior, who was the Second Person of the Godhead, took up a real human body like yours or mine was for some totally inconceivable. If flesh was evil, how could an all-good savior become flesh? Therefore they began to develop theories that Jesus only "appeared" to have a body (Doceticism).
Anyway, the Greek problem is still the same for all mankind. Many ancient Greeks simply could not accept a gospel that went counter to so many of their core-beliefs. So rather than "unlearning" what they believed, they altered the gospel to fit their philosophical and spiritual worldview. People today do the same all the time. So many of the central concepts of the gospel irritate modern people to no end: That man is naturally sinful and fallen and hell-bound, that God sent his only Begotten Son into the world to Atone for those Sins, that Jesus really was the God-man and that he did real miracles, that He died on the Cross and then rose again in the flesh, that we can only be saved through faith in Him, and so on. The end result is that many people would much rather accept ancient gnosticism rather than the much more difficult to swallow teachings of Christ and his Apostles. There I can speak from my own personal experience. The only thing that will really overcome that natural disinclination is to be anaganeo as Christ and the apostles put it - spiritual rebirth, i.e. being "born again" through the power of the Spirit.
Hope this helps someone, somewhere...
Anyway, I've gotta get to bed, before I collapse entirely.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
In keeping with their philosophy, they preferred a religion in which one advanced beyond the material via enlightenment. The felt that the path to this enlightenment was via the assimilation of the "secret teachings" of various enlightened "masters" - hence their name gnostics from the Greek word for "knowledge." They also tended to reject highly material and to their mind "barbaric" and material religion of the ancient Jews. Therefore gnostics like Marcion dramatically revised the canon of scripture to remove the entire Old Testament and to leave only part of one gospel and some of the Pauline epistles. Additionally many of the various gnostic cults began writing pseudopigrahal "sacred writings" such as the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas to advance their particular theology. The heyday of Gnostic Gospel writing was in the 2nd through 4th centuries.
Two interesting points, how is the leaning towards spiritualism as opposed to materialism bad? And if jesus did teach towards a more spiritual/enlightened religion then this would tie in with the indian stories of him.
They also mentioned that the gospel of judas was acknowledged before the gnostics were in their 'heydey' by christian leaders. You can't write it off when the reasons give break down to one mans intrepetation of the number 4. In fact do you deny the teachings in gospel of judas are good... if not better than those in the new testament?
-
I'm sticking with the gospel of Brian.
(http://www.wumingfoundation.com/english/giap/film_life_of_brian.jpg)
-
Yeah, what have the Romans done for us anyway!
Dissenter!!!
-
I predict a Gospel of Judas Priest box set or greatest hits record out in a matter of weeks
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'm sticking with the gospel of Brian.
I want to have babies. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.
-
Hi Vulcan,
Originally posted by Vulcan
Two interesting points, how is the leaning towards spiritualism as opposed to materialism bad? And if jesus did teach towards a more spiritual/enlightened religion then this would tie in with the indian stories of him.
They also mentioned that the gospel of judas was acknowledged before the gnostics were in their 'heydey' by christian leaders. You can't write it off when the reasons give break down to one mans intrepetation of the number 4. In fact do you deny the teachings in gospel of judas are good... if not better than those in the new testament?
Just some things to chew on. To adopt Gnosticism is to absolutely break the tie between Judaism and the Christian faith. In essence Gnosticism rejects the entire OT and remakes Christianity into a Hellenistic Mystery Religion. The gnostic Jesus is not Jewish, like the Gnostics, that Jesus is opposed to the religion of the Old Testament and is attempting to replace it with a mystic Greek philosophy. It is to reject Jerusalem entirely and replace it with Athens.
The message of the Christian gospels and the New Testament on the other hand is a continuation of the message of the Old Testament. In the New Testament the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah are fullfilled (Read Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 for instance). Jesus referred to these prophecies frequently in reference to himself. Additionally, the Apostles in their sermons used the fulfillment of OT prophecy to preach the gospel, but the substance of that preaching was utterly rejected by the Gnostics, for instance here is part of what Peter preached on Pentecost:
Acts 2:29 "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,
31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
32 "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
33 "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
34 "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
35 Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." '
36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Peter in the above section refers both to God's promise to David that the Messiah would be one of his descendents and Psalm 110 where David refers to the Messiah as "My Lord" - hence Jesus is both human and divine. He also refers to Jesus as both Body and Soul and implies that his sarx (flesh) did not see corruption but that he rose from the dead and then ascended bodily into heaven. All of this would have been horrible theology for the Gnostic, but is perfectly in keeping with the prophecies of the Old Testament and their fulfillment in the canonical gospels.
As for the provenance of the "Gospel of Judas". The copy that was discovered in the 1970s is from the 5th century at least, the very fact that its a codex not a scroll confirms that. The first reference to a Gospel of Judas is found in the work of the second century church father Irenaeus in his book "Against Heresies" (180 AD) where it is one of many 2nd century writings produced by Gnostics and Proto-Gnostics condemned as bogus. Specifically the sect that produced it were called "the Cainites" here is the Schaff Herzog entry on the Cainite sect:
CAINITES: According to Irenaeus (Haer., i. 31), a sect of the Ophites who worshiped Cain as an instrument of the Gnostic Sophia, treated with hostility by the demiurge. They saw in Judas the one who best of all knew the truth, celebrated his treason as a mystery, and had a "Gospel of Judas." The notices of Pseudo-Tertullian (Haer., vii.), Philastrius (Hær., ii.), and Epiphanius (Haer., xxxviii.) accord with these statements. Cain was generated of higher power than Abel, and Judas was the benefactor of the human race, either because by his treason he frustrated Christ's intention to destroy truth (Philastrius), or because he compelled the archons to kill Christ, and so assisted in obtaining the salvation of the cross (Epiphanius). When Tertullian (Praescriptio hæreticorum, xxxiii.; cf. De baptismo, i.) mentions "Gaiana heresis" he probably refers to the Cainites. Cf. also Clement, Strom., vi. 108; Theodoret, Haer., i. 15; Hippolytus, Phil., viii. 20.
To introduce the Gospel of Judas as authentic would be to say that Jesus was essentially an anti-Jewish proponent of a particular Greek gnostic Mystery religion, and not the Messiah simply because we prefer our philosophy to what the NT actually teachings. It wouldn't be too terribly different from introducing a "Racist Gospel" because we happen to be members of the Aryan Nations.
As for preferring what the Gospel of Judas teaches to the NT? At one time I would have said yes, in my youth I was a big fan of any Gnostic Gospel. But you know, I never found salvation from sin in any of them, to find the solution to man's real problem, you have to look to the canonical gospels of the first century not the gnostic gospels of the second.
- SEAGOON
-
One really minor issue here seagoon... your entire basis for discounting the gospel of judas is based on quotes out of the new testament gospels. Its not a very unbiased or neutral view. One of the points raised was that the nt gospels vary in their account of judas from neutral to hateful, as though the story was changed to suit political motives. So the nt itself can get its story straight. Even the references you quote are biased ... refering to judas's 'treason'.
I also don't see how the gospel of judas is antisemantic, a large point of it was that it painted a far different picture - and that it may have stopped antisemantism fermenting under the 'nt' had it been accepted.