Will respond to you soon, Bombadillo! Just want to eat supper first.
Many Christians believe that people try to fill that instinct in a large number of ways. They might try to fill that lacking up with sports, money, fishing, or other. They focus their lives on things of this life that will not last and can never satisfy fully.

So has anyone been following the whole Gospel of Judas issue thats been in the news recently? Pretty interesting stuff...

I've followed it. It was a significant Gnostic book, though rejected by the early church. The Apostle Paul spent time in the epistles arguing against Gnosticism.

I'll have to respond to you tomorrow or another day, Bombadillo. Too busy, and distracted also by the Muslims thread. I'll probably get around to it soon, however ;).

Who really preaches against the Gnostics is St. John; he's all about the Incarnation.

They did a pretty good job analyzing it on a National Geographic special last Sunday. They said the concepts in it were too threatening to the early church so every attempt was made to eliminate it. They gave several reasons.

First, it was too esoteric and "advanced" for the common people to grab onto during a time when christianity was at risk of going extinct because of the persecution against early christians. The church leaders felt the common people needed something more clear and uplifting to grab onto. And the Gospel of Judas was confusing and seemingly in conflict with some of the tenants established in the main four gospels. Several experts said its a brilliant work on a spiritual level but its more of an "advanced" course where as MLMJ are kind of remedial level and easier to grasp.

Second, at the time the early christians were in the process of peeling themselves away from Judaism and the concept of Judas as a betrayer was a significant vehicle toward this end (it established a kind of us against them difference within this new Jewish sect) so to suddenly portray Judas as like the number one apostle and the one most trusted by Jesus with “secret knowledge” would undermine that severely. So the powers that be ruled out use of this gospel as heresy. Although interestingly enough many religious experts say the concepts presented in it really make a lot of sense when considering the culture and norms of the era. Apparently the idea of single tutorage was an absolute must by a rabi to his student in that era and was used along WITH group teaching. ONLY group teaching would have been unusual.

Which is why it's easy to believe it's made up.

Come again? Are you implying only unusual and untypical practices should be thought of as legit?

This seems improbable, in view of the fact that there is lots of complex theology in the New Testament and Epistles. Have you ever tried reading Romans? The idea that Judas was good and sent to betray Jesus with full knowledge of the good that would come of this is a much easier concept than much of the complex New Testament theology.

The Gospel of Judas is definitely in conflict with the four Gospels though. And the Gospels of Matthew and John were in all probability written by disciples. Mark, the author of another gospel, was written by a friend of Peter. Luke was a friend to Paul, who knew the disciples and was in the inner circle of the early church leaders. All of these are highly credible authors with a high likelihood of understanding what events had occurred. The authorship of John is debated by some scholars (though there is certainly a good case that it was the disciple John who wrote it), but the others are highly accepted among modern scholarship.

On the other hand, who wrote the Gospel of Judas is unknown. Irenaeus attributes the writing of this Gospel to a Gnostic sect called the Cainites, a group which had a common practice of glorifying Old Testament characters who challenged Yahweh and villifying heroes that the Old Testament praised. Its treatment of Judas is little different from this common practice in that sect.

According to Wikipedia, the Gospel of Judas claimed to be a "secret account," "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot." It was a scripture only for people of a high level among the Cainites.

It's all so vague and silly. The Gospel is of unknown authorship, rejected by the Early Church, contrary to the testimony of the disciples (those who knew Judas) and more fantastical than the cannonical Gospels in its account as well.
The current accounts came from the former friends of Judas. The "powers that be" were those who believed what the disciples said. The disciples knew Judas Iscariot and were witnesses of the betrayal in Gethsemane. The fact that they rejected Gnosticism is important. Gnosticism claims that Jesus said Judas would go beyond the other disciples, but who could have known that these conversations took place except the disciples? And did they testify that this occurred? The historicity of the "secret account" that is the Gospel of Judas is incredibly doubtful, while the historical accuracy of many parts of the cannonical Gospels has been verified time and again.
Jesus did break customs in the way he taught his disciples. For instance, he chose people as his disciples out of professions that normally people wouldn't come from as disciples. Usually rabbis would take as disciples people who were highly trained and knowledgeable in the scripture. They didn't take fishermen, common workers without great theological training. Jesus also refused to hold the Sabbath in a normal way, but instead broke it on the excuse that he was, "Lord of the Sabbath." He was a rule breaker and a radical. So it is possible this is the explanation.

However, there is another answer also possible. Jesus may have had this special disciple in Peter. Jesus had private conversations with Peter that are recorded in the Gospels. Peter was the first of the disciples to proclaim of Jesus, "you are the Son of God!" Peter was the first of the twelve to enter Jesus' tomb. He was the disciple Jesus told, "I give you the keys to heaven and earth," and also one of whom he said, "you shall be called Peter, and on this rock I shall build my church." Jesus also took only Peter and John of the twelve with him to the mountaintop where the Transfiguration occurred.

A literal interpretation of the scripture is still pretty widespread among Christians, I've always thought. :confused: I know there are large Christian groups that reject this interpretation though, of course. This is particularly true since liberalism gained such strength in society.
I'll just interject here that mankind has understood that God or gods existed for long before the beginning of civilization. Even the Neanderthals buried their dead along with sacrifices (or was it gear? I can't remember right now :( ), which proves that they believed in an afterlife, and thus probably had specific beliefs about God. I think humans have pretty much always been trying to understand and experience God.
There were plenty of atheists and agnostics in the time of the Roman Empire, as well. Even the Old Testament talks about atheists a little. Just mentioning these things so you can take them into account in your theory.
Don't worry. I didn't feel at all insulted.

No, no. I'm merely saying that behaviour that is contrary to the norm is not as likely to be made up and presented as real as behaviour that goes along with the norm, especially in a culture other than our modern one. It's hip to be a nonconformist today, but back then it was taboo.

From reading your post (I didn't see the show), IMO what they (and you) did "a pretty good job" on was showing your bias :D I would say that the writers were liberals and evolutionists, based on your summary.

Point #1 showing a liberal is behind this show: liberals are into conspiracy theories ;)
Was this presented as a theory, or did they say they KNEW this? And "threatening" how? If it was because the information contained in it was determined, to the best of their abilities, to be false, then there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to eliminate it. Scientists certainly do this.

Point #2 showing a liberal is behind this show: the utterly ridiculous idea that common people and religious people are generally stupid.

Point #3 showing a liberal is behind this show: the strange idea that "spiritual" and "factual" have nothing to do with each other. Many liberals seem to think that something can be brilliant by being "spiritual", whether or not there's any truth in it or if it has anything at all to do with reality, while if the gospels just relate plain facts and aren't "spiritual", then they aren't much good.

Points #1 and #2 again, plus Point #3:
Point #3 showing a liberal is behind this show: the odd idea that facts don't matter; only one's agenda matters.

Jesus had an inner group among the 12 disciples - Peter, James and John. And Peter and John were especially close with Jesus - Lief pointed out Peter stuff.

And why I think evolutionists were behind the show? They show a stellar ability here to have a preconceived notion and then make an unproveable theory to fit the observable facts.

:rolleyes: Reacted to like a true conservative and hard line Christian showing THEIR bias. Hey you forgot to add in "godless communists" for even better effect rian.

So im showing my bias by asking Christians what they thought of it? Yer right I should be out pickiting against it being on the air…

They had several theology experts (degrees and all) talking about how the concepts presented in The Gospel of Judas would have been considered threatening to the Christian movement at the time since it went counter to some of the other teachings and concepts. This makes sense if you think about it because Christianity was in its infancy then and christians were under sever persecution and you could confuse people or put people off by preaching two seemingly contradictory messages to them. And these folks did not sneer and sound self important and anti Christian. They looked and acted like genuine scholars speaking from deep knowledge. Not know nothing friends of the director who just wanted to bad mouth Christianity.

Not stupid. Just uneducated (most couldn’t read) and of the peasant class. So does it make sense to present graduate level concepts to people without the tools to grasp such things? Are you saying not teaching calculus to second graders is saying they are stupid? If you try teaching calculus to second graders you might end up turning them off to math all together... especially if they are at risk of being tortured and killed for even believing in math.

Um are you saying the four main gospels just relate facts and not spiritual content at all?

Perhaps you should watch the show before you outright trash it and everyone on it… That makes YOU look like the reactionary with an agenda you realize.

This was a post made from the point of view of someone zealotly defending their belief system. Not from someone soberly considering someone else’s theories on something that actually exists and raises questions. In this way you undermined the credibility of your response completely.

I think it is quite possible these teachings would have been considered threatening. They would have been considered a distortion of the message, and for good reason. I talked about this at some length in my last post, which I look forward to reading your response to :).
The evidence suggests that the early Christians were not concerned about this. There were comments in the Bible that require close examination to see that they aren't contradictory and theologically make sense. For example, Jesus' cry on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" A quick reading might interpret this as weakness and despair. Also the passage Gwaimir brought up earlier, "I do not come to bring peace, but a sword." A cursory reading might say, "oh, Jesus wants violence! But hang on, he was supposed to be the Prince of Peace . . . :confused:" The Book of Romans is packed with complex theology. The Apostle Paul never tries to distort what he believes to be truth in order to present a simple message. Instead, he goes carefully through the arguments on theological issues of great complexity.
Rían makes a good point that the suggestions made about the Gospel of Judas are no more than suggestions and claims. *Writes a good deal more and then deletes it.* I want to see you respond to my previous post! *Bawls like an annoying baby.*

The GJ is "authentic," in one sense of the term. It really was written in the 200s or so, and had to have been a copy of a previous version (since Irenaeus referenced it in 180 AD). Science can confirm it's physical origin. However that is over a hundred years after the canonical Gospels and the book of Acts were written (circa 60-90 AD), and not in the lifetime of any eyewitnesses. Since GJ contradicts Matthew/Mark/Luke/John, it only makes sense to believe the earlier texts that were recorded by the actual eyewitnesses.
Moreover, the GJ is completely full of developed Gnostic ideas (another creator), terms (aeons and luminaries), and beliefs about salvation (only for a select few "enlightened" persons), that are contrary to orthodox Christianity. This is obviously non-first-century theology.

The GJ is strictly historically unreliable.

Thoughts:
-Two centuries is a long time to wait to write something down. Is Abraham Lincoln's "true" life going to be recorded in a few decades? I think not. One can't expect a second or third or fourth century (as some "lost gospels") document to give first century information.
-The early church wasn't trying to "supress" the truth. They merely wanted to end the heresy.

A quote: 'The leading biblical scholar and translator of the dead sea scrolls, Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford University, said: "The document is of interest for the ideas of the gnostics but it almost certainly adds nothing to our understanding of what happened 150 years before it was written."'

It's just another Gnostic gosple guys! Why the hype? :p

ESPECIALLY ones propogated by patriarchal hierarchical churches. ;)

Common people are.

I'd wager not a one was orthodox on the basic tenets of the Faith. Was Elizabeth Claire Prophet there? Elaine Pagel?

Tweed jackets and spectacles, and everything! ;)

But if they can be tortured and killed for addition and subtraction even, why let that happen? If they will die, let them know the full truth of what they die for.

Again Im not a producer of the show. All I did was watch it. Perhaps you can find more information by going to http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/c...das/index.html
or http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/

And by the way Im a big Elaine Pagel fan. ;)

Come on you have to take them seriously if they sit them down in front of screen shots of 1st century ruins and/or a wall of library books!

Well anyone with any background in marketing knows if you are asking a customer to pay a huge price for your product then you better make it as simple and appealing as possible. Sure YOU may have been willing to give up your life for inconsistent and/or confusing messages but a lot of folk would have lost interest considering the potential price they had to pay for holding to these beliefs.

As to the notion that its silly to take it seriously at all because it wasnt written down till the second century well that doesnt really hold any water because thats only the ONE version we know of. Could it not have been written down before that and just lost? And couldnt it have been passed along by oral tradition like the other gospels? I mean even the 'youngest' of the four main gospels was a good 65 years AFTER the death of christ I believe so you could certainly make the same argument that writing about Lincolns teachings in the 1920's or 1930's would have been silly as well. But you would discounting a lot of unknown factors.

Gwai, are you saying that IYO, "common people" are stupid?

(and please fix your quote tags - my writing is showing up as your writing)

I think the Newsweek article about this "gospel" had the best line - "Last week, the public unveiling of the manuscript. Next year, the illustrated critical edition. Can the lipstick tie-in be far behind?"

Funny, and also IMO a good summation of why it's even in the news (apart from its interest as an ancient manuscript).

I think Merc summed it up best - "It's just another Gnostic gosple guys! Why the hype?"

Is it possible that from the very start all the original gospels were written in a way designed more to appeal to converts since this was the driving force of the first christians? To preach the word of Christ and make more Christians? And that the church was then built around the notions laid forth in these spoken and written gospels? And perhaps many of the other gospels were simply spin-offs based on the wide spread cultural prevalence to a spoken delivery of these teachings which by nature are likely to quickly evolve on their own as they are passed from person to person? When the first gospels were first written down who was it for? For posterity? For the masses? The vast majority of the masses could do nothing with written words. So what was the inspiration to write them down originally? For the literate elders of the religion? Was it kind of like a text book that they were to use when speaking to possible converts?