The "Gospel of Judas" unveiled.

[Hamhock]

And yet even the most hard-core Christians don't have a problem with the wealthy politicians who pander to them. WWJD? He wouldn't vote Republican. Or Democrat.


That's on overgeneralization. Wouldn't vote repub or dim? I agree with you.

[mdklatt]

I think C.S. Lewis said it best:

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."

There is a third option: You don't believe that Jesus claimed to be the son of God at all.

[SoonerWood]

I just assumed that someone with thoughts on the Creator and how he chooses to treat people had a basis for said thoughts.

I guess I was wrong.

Huh? You sure read a lot into my question.

Bleh. I should know better than to step into this boxing ring. ;)

[Hamhock]

There is a third option: You don't believe that Jesus claimed to be the son of God at all.


There's always a third option, isn't there. ;)

[Boarder]

I agree with Dave on this one. I think Jesus would shake his head at the state of the Christian Church today.
I think He'd look at it on a case by case basis, kind of like He will with us when we die.

But, if He thought a person was doing wrong, no matter what kind of standing he had in a Church, he'd tell them directly, like He did with the Pharisees.

[mdklatt]

That's on overgeneralization.

During the upcoming election season just watch how many candidates say, "I stand for Oklahoma values." I defy you to find one that doesn't say that. That's just shortand for "I'm a good Christian just like you", isn't it?

[Hamhock]

Huh? You sure read a lot into my question.


Ok, I'll bite....It matters to me because I'm curious about your thoughts.

There, I answered your question. Will you answer mine?

[Hamhock]

During the upcoming election season just watch how many candidates say, "I stand for Oklahoma values." I defy you to find one that doesn't say that. That's just shortand for "I'm a good Christian just like you", isn't it?


I agree. The over generalization was "even the most hard core Christians don't have a problem..."

[Sooner_Bob]

The point is that change, belief, trust, and redemption is within us. You won't find it in a book, you won't find it beating yourself up on Sunday believing that another person will lead you down the right path for salvation. The path is there, and you will reach it on your own if you truly believe.
IMO if you live a christian life everyday there's no need to beat yourself up on Sunday. :D



You don't need a minister, a church, or religion to get there.

The encouragement of fellow believers and being held accountable by someone else is a powerful motivator.



All you need is belief that there is a God, and that he will accept you as a flawed being because his love is all encompasing and that your moments of weakness and transgression are part of your never ending search for his meaning and your purpose.
We must accept Him . . . God's love for us is always there, all we need to do is confess that we believe he is the Son of God and ask for His forgiveness. His sacrifice and grace trumps our moments of weakness any day. ;)

[caphorns]

I tend to think that the modern church growth movement (colorful/non-boring) is an affront to the true gospel. Most of the time, these churches focus too much on how can God help me, rather than how can i glorify God.



I disagree. God didn't say glorify me only in boring songs from 100 years ago. Nothing wrong with updating the music so long as you stay consistent with the message.

I think for nonbelievers and for really everyone the church must give to receive - just like a person. The first thing you have to do is help the nonbeliever and really anyone in the congregation. Glorfying god is what comes from those acts of kindness. Giving to others is the ultimate goal of the "we" in church - not just singing praises on Sunday. Church's should be about fulfilling people.

Do church's stray from the message - absolutely. So in that sense, we may find more agreement. I don't think a church should be about tearing people down or instilling fear to force people to believe. It is this form of manipulation - old and new - that I have a great distaste for. And I'm talking some pretty big church units here so attack as you will. I know there are followers of this style church about anywhere in the planet. Unfortunately, I think their methods - although they may even be virtuous in intent - give more grounds to the nonbelievers.

[Stoop Dawg]

I think He'd look at it on a case by case basis, kind of like He will with us when we die.

But, if He thought a person was doing wrong, no matter what kind of standing he had in a Church, he'd tell them directly, like He did with the Pharisees.

I'll tell you this, the b@st@rds that send rollers down a long, smooth cove are gonna get it the worst. I promise you that! ;)

[Hamhock]

I disagree. God didn't say glorify me only in boring songs from 100 years ago. Nothing wrong with updating the music so long as you stay consistent with the message.


I agree. 100 year old hymns glorify God no more than some of today's praise choruses that are based on scripture.




I think for nonbelievers and for really everyone the church must give to receive - just like a person. The first thing you have to do is help the nonbeliever and really anyone in the congregation. Glorifying god is what comes from those acts of kindness. Giving to others is the ultimate goal of the "we" in church - not just singing praises on Sunday. Church's should be about fulfilling people.

I agree and disagree. I believe that "church" is for believers. It is meant to teach and build up believers. As believers we have a responsibility to go out into the world and give to others. If you make the lost and giving to the lost the focus of church services, you produce a shallow believer.


Do church's stray from the message - absolutely. So in that sense, we may find more agreement. I don't think a church should be about tearing people down or instilling fear to force people to believe. It is this form of manipulation - old and new - that I have a great distaste for. And I'm talking some pretty big church units here so attack as you will. I know there are followers of this style church about anywhere in the planet. Unfortunately, I think their methods - although they may even be virtuous in intent - give more grounds to the nonbelievers.

I also disagree with manipulation. I'm not talking about scaring people, but I'm also talking about not watering down the scriptures as they speak to God's holiness, our sin, hell, etc.

[Sooner_Bob]

I agree and disagree. I believe that "church" is for believers. It is meant to teach and build up believers. As believers we have a responsibility to go out into the world and give to others. If you make the lost and giving to the lost the focus of church services, you produce a shallow believer.



Are you sure about that?

IMO thinking that "church" is just for believers is what got christianity in a tight spot with non-believers.

Spreading the word of God to the lost is very much the focus of many, many worship services . . . just as it should be. Or at the very least equipping believers to spreading the good news to the lost.

[caphorns]

Our church works actively with the non-believers. It's a big part of the Christian movement IMO. I do agree with most of what you are saying though Hamhock. The message should not be too watered down as to be no message at all.

[Hamhock]

Are you sure about that?

IMO thinking that "church" is just for believers is what got christianity in a tight spot with non-believers.

Spreading the word of God to the lost is very much the focus of many, many worship services . . . just as it should be. Or at the very least equipping believers to spreading the good news to the lost.

Can you show me in scripture were it says that the gathering together is for non-believers?

Please don't misunderstand me. What I am saying in no way lessens my responsibility to show love and spread the gospel to non-believers. However, I believe that many churches focus on "seeker sensitive" services to the detriment of the believers. The philosophy of many of these churches are be sure not to offend those who attend by talking about sin.

[Hamhock]

Our church works actively with the non-believers. It's a big part of the Christian movement IMO. I do agree with most of what you are saying though Hamhock. The message should not be too watered down as to be no message at all.


Evangelism should be a byproduct of the church. I just believe that many are throwing discipleship out the window. That is why the turnover in those churches is so high. The feel good gospel has no meat to it.

Honestly, this is a relatively new train of thought for me. Try reading John MaCarthur's Ashamed of the Gospel.

[SoonerWood]

Ok, I'll bite....It matters to me because I'm curious about your thoughts.

There, I answered your question. Will you answer mine?

I know better than to get sucked into a religious pi$$ing match. oh well...

With a family of ministers, seminarians, missionaries and even a few buddhist thrown in the mix, I've had plenty of these discussions (I am going to bible study tonight as a matter of fact) and the one thing I've learned from all of them is that while most profess that their side is the true 'truth', the foundation of that truth lies in personal faith. Having that faith is what turns the belief into truth.

My ideas are more or less taken from a pragmatic standpoint (and not as defined by Charles Colson) - I don't claim to know what happens when we die, but I do know that humans have a way of being able to give every single situation some sort of religious twist - usually something along the lines of "My team won because God was watching over us" or "That tornado turned just as it came to my house and missed it completely, IT WAS A MIRACLE! I prayed and my prayers were answered!" Meanwhile, the 11 other people that were praying just before they died didn't have the same luck. I see this sort of stuff All. The. Time.

I usually don't participate in religious threads anymore because after several thousand of them, I've yet to see one single person change. I doubt anyone will, unless they are in the middle of some sort of their own personal crisis. It's not by chance that most of the people on death row find God in some form.

I'll never say anyone is wrong, but I can come up with question after question and finally boil all answers down to two things - "You have to have faith", and "We humans are unable to comprehend the infinite power of God."

Time for bible study :D

[Sooner_Bob]

Can you show me in scripture were it says that the gathering together is for non-believers?


Oh my. You did not just say that non-believers shouldn't attend church did you?




Please don't misunderstand me. What I am saying in no way lessens my responsibility to show love and spread the gospel to non-believers. However, I believe that many churches focus on "seeker sensitive" services to the detriment of the believers. The philosophy of many of these churches are be sure not to offend those who attend by talking about sin.


I'm not talking about watering-down the Word so that non-believers aren't offended. I'm talking about a church who's philosophy is to seek the lost and share the Word. The Gospel often offends folks, believers and non-believers alike.

Besides, church isn't about me or you, it's about bringing glory to God.

[Hamhock]

Oh my. You did not just say that non-believers shouldn't attend church did you?.


I absolutely did not say that. I just don't think that the focus of all church services should be to cater to the felt needs of non-believers. I think the Word of God should be taught in church. Period. IMO, way too much emotion is being pedaled in churches today. Emotion, combined with light sermons about love and how God can bless me produces shallow believers that are no different than the world around them.





I'm not talking about watering-down the Word so that non-believers aren't offended. I'm talking about a church who's philosophy is to seek the lost and share the Word. The Gospel often offends folks, believers and non-believers alike.

Besides, church isn't about me or you, it's about bringing glory to God.

On this, we agree.

[Octavian]

"non-believer" is quite possibily the worst description I can think of for someone who does not subscribe to the same dogma as you...

nothing screams Jesus like condescending pitty :twinkies:

[Hamhock]

"non-believer" is quite possibily the worst description I can think of for someone who does not subscribe to the same dogma as you...

nothing screams Jesus like condescending pitty :twinkies:


no condescending pity intended.

sorry if some was taken.

[Octavian]

perhaps you could pitty me for not knowing how to spell "pity" ;)

[Octavian]

no...its just when I hear some Muslim rant about "infadels" it makes me sick...

to me, religion is what someone makes it...I guess I sorta believe your soul unbiasedly judges itself after you kick it...religion has been present throughout all civilizations across space and time...how is ours (this one, right now) the one true answer for everyone?

[Sooner_Bob]

"non-believer" is quite possibily the worst description I can think of for someone who does not subscribe to the same dogma as you...

nothing screams Jesus like condescending pitty :twinkies:

How is "non-believer" condescending?

:les:non-believer: One who does not believe or have faith, as in God or a philosophy.

If you're not a christian, muslim, buddhist or whatever you choose not to be one for a reason. I'd be surprised if not believing isn't one of them.

You either believe in "something" or you don't. There's no reason to get irritated about it or feel sick.

Like right now I believe I'll go to bed . . . :P

[Scott D]

you don't believe in going to bed ;)

[starclassic tama]

since my question wasn't answered i guess i'll just have to
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/carsick/low_a193c728090b46b.jpg

[Hamhock]

i never could understand why god would send all those people to hell. if you believe something in your heart to be true and you live your life true to all your morals, but they aren't religious, why would he send you to hell? what kind of egofreak is he?

I'm not sure egofreak is accurate. God does describe himself as a jealous God.

God's measure is perfection. If you break one portion of the law, you are guilty of breaking the whole law. This is what Jesus meant when he said "You've heard not to commit adultery. I say that if you lustfully check out ta-tas, you've already committed adultery in your heart".

One of the main purposes of the law was not to bring us in line with God, but to help us realize how far we are separated from God by our sin. Since we cannot attain perfection, we must rely on someone who can. Just like OT atonement had to be made with blood, so does our atonement today. The blood of Christ.

As to why God deals with people the way he does, I can't answer that. Except to say that God is sovereign. Another question would be: Why does God allow any of us to live a minute longer in light of our wickedness?

There are many things that I cannot understand that I believe to be true. I cannot understand how life is created, but I am pretty sure that it is.

[SoonerWood]

There are many things that I cannot understand that I believe to be true. I cannot understand how life is created, but I am pretty sure that it is.

Oh you poor fella... Didn't your parents explain the birds and bees to you when you were growing up? :D

[Hamhock]

Oh you poor fella... Didn't your parents explain the birds and bees to you when you were growing up? :D


I still can't figure out why one of my dogs was always trying to get the other dog to give it a piggy-back ride. :confused:

[JohnnyMack]

That this thread is still alive is proof that :dean: must be out of town.

[caphorns]

i never could understand why god would send all those people to hell. if you believe something in your heart to be true and you live your life true to all your morals, but they aren't religious, why would he send you to hell? what kind of egofreak is he?

I'll bite starclassic. I think you're viewpoint assumes that God is not altruistic - possibly based on passages from the Old Testiment. Many Christians do not take a literal view of the Old Testament and I personally question the validity of the some of the stories related long before Christ's delivery of God's message. I also am petrified to listen to your typical hell-raiser preacher and his methods of intimidating the believers by using old testament verse. Taking all of this aside, if you believe Christ is the son of God and Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins (you may not believe this), then that's a powerful message of God's altruism. How many of you would sacrifice your own son's life - not just in any fashion but through hanging from a cross as your picture depicts - for the sake of ALL people and especially including the wicked, poor, greedy, meek and sinful? So, think about your own sinfulness. Put yourself in God's shoes. Knowing your sinfulness - he sacrificed his son to save you (in the minds of Christians). When human's do such things - giving of themselves or even sacrificing their wellbeing for the good of man - I believe this to be the evidence of God's work in this world. I can see where this could be analogized to martyrdom in the Muslim faith. But my issue with martyrdom for muslim's is the presumptuousness of it. They go too far in presuming the value of their sacrifice and the relative judgments they lay at the hands of those they are trying to destroy. It's the underlying message that disturbs me there, not so much the individual who makes the sacrifice.

So why does martyrdom exist in a world created by God (if God is altruistic)? Because God have us a gift to be free moral agents. This brings us closer to God (we are created in the image of God). And you cannot have free moral agency without there being choices between good and evil.

As for the afterlife, I don't presume to understand it that much. I try to follow what's asked of me in this world and let the chips fall where they may in the afterlife. I certainly don't presume to know what will happen to others around me. Man cannot sit in final judgment of other men in my Christian view. Simple really. But it doesn't take me long to envision the kind of person who'd be suited for hell if I were the choser - based on their abuse of the gift of free moral agency.

[JohnnyMack]

I personally question the validity of the some of the stories related long before Christ's delivery of God's message.

Funny, I'm kinda skeptical of a religion that ripped off most of its tenets from another religion that predates it by 1000 years.

[SoonerWood]

Taking all of this aside, if you believe Christ is the son of God and Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins (you may not believe this), then that's a powerful message of God's altruism. How many of you would sacrifice your own son's life - not just in any fashion but through hanging from a cross as your picture depicts - for the sake of ALL people and especially including the wicked, poor, greedy, meek and sinful? So, think about your own sinfulness. Put yourself in God's shoes. Knowing your sinfulness - he sacrificed his son to save you (in the minds of Christians). When human's do such things - giving of themselves or even sacrificing their wellbeing for the good of man - I believe this to be the evidence of God's work in this world.

I don't see how God 'sacrificed' anything by allowing Jesus to die at the cross. It's not really a sacrifice if you don't actually sacrifice anything... It's not like Jesus is gone, right?

[caphorns]

I don't see how God 'sacrificed' anything by allowing Jesus to die at the cross. It's not really a sacrifice if you don't actually sacrifice anything... It's not like Jesus is gone, right?

I think the agony that Jesus went through is well documented. Assuming your son could live, would you let him be tortured for days in order to save wicked, sinful people?

[caphorns]

Funny, I'm kinda skeptical of a religion that ripped off most of its tenets from another religion that predates it by 1000 years.

Typical viewpoint if you haven't studied the verse. "Ripped off" is not quite right. You have to understand that the old religion prophesized the coming of a mesiah. There are people who logically believe Christ was not that Mesiah and there are Christians who have little doubt that he was. Take your pick, but it's not a "rip off" of a religion in any sense.

[SoonerWood]

I think the agony that Jesus went through is well documented. Assuming your son could live, would you let him be tortured for days in order to save wicked, sinful people?

Everyone knows the whole view of how short life is compared to the infinite life in heaven, right? Whatever happens on this earth, knowing what God knows, is not even the tiniest drop of water in the ocean. Again - where's the sacrifice part? A few days of torture for an immortal person doesn't count.

[JohnnyMack]

Religion has been evolving for thousands of years. Some religions are born of other religions. Some religions fade away while others thrive. Religion is necessary as it gives that carrot at the end of the stick that so many need to get past the troubling notion that the average life they're living is really all there is.

[Hamhock]

I have two questions for JohnnyMackism. ;)

How did we get here?

What happens when we die?

[SoonerWood]

I have two questions for JohnnyMackism. ;)

How did we get here?

What happens when we die?

No one one knows. I don't, you don't, no one does.

The answers to your questions lie in your faith, not anywhere else. Questions like that don't prove anything or even make any solid points.

[Stoop Dawg]

I have two questions for JohnnyMackism. ;)

How did we get here?

What happens when we die?

And I have a question for religion. ;)

Why are we here?

[JohnnyMack]

How did we get here?

Easy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Xenu_space_plane.jpg


What happens when we die?

Not sure. Ask her:
http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/in_her_shoes/shirley_maclaine/shoespre.jpg

[Hamhock]

No one one knows. I don't, you don't, no one does.

The answers to your questions lie in your faith, not anywhere else. Questions like that don't prove anything or even make any solid points.


Many people, even non religious believe they know. I was asking JM's perspective on it.

Thanks for judging my questions and determining they "don't even make any solid points". Where I went to school, the purpose of a question was to find out information not to "prove anything" or "make points". But that's just me.

What did you have for lunch? Does that prove anything or make a point? :confused:

[Hamhock]

And I have a question for religion. ;)

Why are we here?


The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

[SoonerWood]

Many people, even non religious believe they know. I was asking JM's perspective on it.

Thanks for judging my questions and determining they "don't even make any solid points". Where I went to school, the purpose of a question was to find out information not to "prove anything" or "make points". But that's just me.

What did you have for lunch? Does that prove anything or make a point? :confused:

Perhaps I've had too many of these conversations where these same two questions get brought up with the intention of going down the "Where did we come from, why are we here, what's our purpose in life?" road.

If that's honestly not the direction you were going, then my bad.

[Hamhock]

Perhaps I've had too many of these conversations where these same two questions get brought up with the intention of going down the "Where did we come from, why are we here, what's our purpose in life?" road.

If that's honestly not the direction you were going, then my bad.


No problem.;)

I am honestly curious about non-religious people's perspective on how life was created and what happens when a person's life is over.

[JohnnyMack]

No problem.;)

I am honestly curious about non-religious people's perspective on how life was created and what happens when a person's life is over.

I think we evolved.

When it's over, it's over.

[Kels]

Since Hatfield started the thread about the Gospel of Judas codex discovery, I thought you might find this rebuttal interesting.



Responding to The Gospel of Judas
R. Albert Mohler Jr.


Headlines around the world are announcing the publication of a "long lost" and "suppressed" ancient document, known as The Gospel of Judas. The National Geographic Society announced the publication at a major media event April 6, just in time to boost publicity for its special on the National Geographic Channel April 9.

The announcement led to a frenzy of media coverage, ranging from responsible reports to outrageous sensationalism. According to some commentators, the publication of this new document will force a complete reformulation of Christianity and our understanding of both Judas and Jesus. In reality, nothing of the sort is in view. The document is highly interesting, however, offering an ancient and authoritative source into the thinking of heretical groups who offered alternative understandings of Christianity.

The document purports to be written by Judas, even though it certainly was written long after Judas's death. Nevertheless, the very existence of this document, rooted in the third century after Christ, indicates something of the struggle Christian leaders confronted in defining and defending the authentic Gospel against heretical groups such as the Gnostics.

A quick look at The Gospel of Judas reveals the contrast between this document and the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The English version, edited by Rudolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, and Gregor Wurst, presents an accessible and readable version of the portions of the Codex Tchacos now available. The most remarkable feature of this text is its thoroughly Gnostic character. The substance of this Gospel bears virtually no resemblance to orthodox Christianity -- a fact which explains why the early church recognized this writing for what it is, and rejected it as neither authoritative nor authentic.

In "The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot," Herbert Krosney explains how the codex was discovered and traces the events that led to its publication in English this week: "In the mid- to late 1970s, hidden for more than fifteen hundred years, an ancient text emerged from the sands of Egypt. Near the banks of the Nile River, some Egyptian peasants, fellahin, stumbled upon a cavern. In biblical times, such chambers had been used to bury the dead. The peasants entered the cave, seeking ancient gold or jewelry, anything of value that they could sell. Instead, among a pile of human bones, they discovered a crumbling limestone box. Inside it, they came upon an unexpected find -- a mysterious leather-bound book, a codex."

The portion of the text that is now translated is taken from 13 pages of papyrus, with the text written in Coptic, a language of ancient Egypt. Most scholars agree that The Gospel of Judas was originally written in Greek, and later translated into Coptic. This was the common history of many Gnostic texts, especially those associated with groups common to the area in which the manuscript was found.

"The Lost Gospel" reads like a suspense thriller at times, tracing the odd and admittedly remarkable story of how the codex was preserved and eventually published. Those familiar with the story of the Dead Sea scrolls and the documents of the Nag Hammadi library will recognize significant parallels in the saga of how the texts and manuscripts were found and eventually made available for scholarly review and publication.

The Gnostic character of the text is immediately evident. In his supposed conversations with Judas, Jesus speaks in Gnostic categories such as "aeons" and an "eternal realm." Judas is identified as the "thirteenth spirit" who was appointed by God to be the agent of releasing Jesus from the physical body in which He was trapped in the incarnation.

When Judas speaks of a vision and asks for its interpretation, Jesus answers: "Judas, your star has led you astray." Jesus continues: "No person of mortal birth is worthy to enter the house you have seen, for that place is reserved for the holy. Neither the sun nor the moon will rule there, nor the day, but the holy will abide there always, in the eternal realm with the holy angels. Look, I have explained to you the mysteries of the kingdom and I have taught you about the error of the stars; and ... sent it ... on the twelve aeons."

The concept of secret and mysterious knowledge was central to Gnostic sects. The Gospel of Judas purports to reveal conversations between Jesus and Judas that had been kept secret from the rest of humanity. The Gnostics prized their secret knowledge, and taught a profound dualism between the material and spiritual worlds. They understood the material world, including the entire cosmos, to be a trap for the spiritual world. In essence, the Gnostics sought to escape the material world and to enter the world of spirit.

Accordingly, the most revealing statement in the entire text of The Gospel of Judas records Jesus saying to Judas, "But you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me." In other words, Judas would perform a service to Jesus by betraying Him to those who would then crucify Him, liberating Jesus from the physical body and freeing Him as spirit. As the editors of The Gospel of Judas indicate in a footnote, "The death of Jesus, with the assistance of Judas, is taken to be the liberation of the spiritual person within."

Needless to say, this is in direct conflict with the Christian Gospel and the New Testament. The consistent witness of the New Testament is that Jesus came in order to die for sinners -- willingly accepting the cross and dying as the substitutionary sacrifice for sin.

This redemptive action is completely missing from The Gospel of Judas. For that reason, the text was rejected by early Christian leaders. Writing about the year 180, Irenaeus, a major Christian figure among the early church fathers, identified the text now known as The Gospel of Judas as heretical. In his foreword to "The Lost Gospel," Bart Ehrman, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explains, "This gospel was about the relationship between Jesus and Judas, and indicated that Judas didn't actually betray Jesus, but did what Jesus wanted him to do, because Judas was the one who really knew the truth, as Jesus wanted it communicated."

Ehrman, no friend to orthodox Christianity, has correctly explained the problem. Irenaeus rejected the text precisely because it was in direct conflict with the canonical Gospels and with the teaching of the Apostles. Accordingly, it was his responsibility to warn the church about the heretical nature of this document. Still, the very fact that Irenaeus mentions the document with such a specific reference gives considerable credence to the claim that The Gospel of Judas is as old in its origin as its patrons now claim.

We now know a great deal about the Gnostic sects common to the first centuries of Christianity. The particular sect thought to be associated with the origin of The Gospel of Judas was known as the Cainites. The peculiar teachings of this sect included the rehabilitation of many characters presented negatively in the Bible -- starting with Cain. In essence, the Cainites attempted to take the negative figures of the Bible and present them in a heroic light. In order to do this, of course, they had to create alternative texts and an alternative rendering of the story of Jesus.

What are Christians to make of all this? The publication of The Gospel of Judas is a matter of genuine interest. After all, it is important for Christians to understand the context of early Christianity -- a context in which the church was required to exercise tremendous discernment in confronting heretical teachings and rejecting spurious texts.

The scholarly research behind the publication of The Gospel of Judas appears to be sound and responsible. The codex manuscript was submitted to the most rigorous historical process in terms of dating, chemical composition, and similar questions. In the end, it appears that the document is most likely authentic, in terms of its origin from within a heretical sect in the third century.

Nevertheless, extravagant claims about the theological significance of The Gospel of Judas are unwarranted, ridiculous, and driven by those who themselves call for a reformulation of Christianity.

The resurgence of interest in Gnostic texts such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas is driven by an effort, at least on the part of some figures, to argue that early Christianity had no essential theological core. Instead, scholars such as Elaine Pagels of Princeton University want to argue that, "These discoveries are exploding the myth of a monolithic religion, and demonstrating how diverse -- and fascinating -- the early Christian movement really was." What Pagels and many other figures argue is that early Christianity was a cauldron of competing theologies, and that ideological and political factors explain why an "orthodox" tradition eventually won, suppressing all competing theologies. Accordingly, these same figures argue that today's Christians should be open to these variant teachings that had long been suppressed and hidden from view.

Metropolitan Bishoy, leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church, dismissed The Gospel of Judas as "non-Christian babbling resulting from a group of people trying to create a false 'amalgam' between the Greek mythology and Far East religions with Christianity... They were written by a group of people who were aliens to the main Christian stream of the early Christianity. These texts are neither reliable nor accurate Christian texts, as they are historically and logically alien to the main Christian thinking and philosophy of the early and present Christians." The Metropolitan is right, but we are better armed to face the heresies of our own day if we face with honesty the heresies of times past.

Simon Gathercole, a New Testament professor at Aberdeen University, defended the text as authentic, but relatively unimportant. "It is certainly an ancient text, but not ancient enough to tell us anything new," Gathercole explains. "It contains themes which are alien to the first-century world of Jesus and Judas, but which became popular later."
Indeed, those Gnostic ideas did become popular later, and they are becoming increasingly popular now. The truth of the Gospel stands, and Christians will retain firm confidence in the authenticity of the New Testament and, in particular, of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Nevertheless, old Gnosticisms are continually repackaged and "rediscovered" even as new forms of Gnostic thought emerge in our postmodern culture.

Informed Christians will be watchful and aware when confronting churches or institutions that present spurious writings, rejected as heretical by the early church, on the same plane as the New Testament.

The verdict of Athanasius, one of the greatest leaders of the early church, still stands: "Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these, for concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, 'Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.' And He reproved the Jews, saying, 'Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.'"

Just some food for thought . . .

[Hamhock]

I think we evolved.

When it's over, it's over.


Yes, but do you know why it is called a pair of underwear, when there is only one?

[caphorns]

Thanks Kels. As I said before, this discovery that started this thread is only confirmation that heretical text was written nearly a century after the writings of the 4 Gospels. The fact that this sect had origins among groups who tried to recast the "bad" characters of the Bible was unknown to me but really brings this discovery into perspective as a Christian.

For non-Christians, frankly, this discovery is a non-event. It confirms that there were gnostics who wrote alternate stories from the Bible long after the accepted Gospels were in existence. Nobody has ever contested the existence of the Gnostic sect or the many, many skeptics of the time for that matter.

[mdklatt]

I am honestly curious about non-religious people's perspective on how life was created and what happens when a person's life is over.

Except for curiosity's sake, why should either one effect how I live my life? It is of no practical concern to me how we got here, because here we are. And I'm going to do my best to not be an a**hole regardless of what eternal reward is or isn't waiting for me when I die.

[mdklatt]

Taking all of this aside, if you believe Christ is the son of God and Christ died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins (you may not believe this), then that's a powerful message of God's altruism.

If your god is so great, how come he made you a Hook 'em fan?

:texan:

[Hamhock]

Except for curiosity's sake, why should either one effect how I live my life? It is of no practical concern to me how we got here, because here we are. And I'm going to do my best to not be an a**hole regardless of what eternal reward is or isn't waiting for me when I die.


For most people it doesn't affect how they live their life. It would seem to me that a firm belief of "when it's over, it's over" would produce an extreme hedonism.

[Hamhock]

If your god is so great, how come he made you a Hook 'em fan?

:texan:


I had not thought of that!!

Maybe there really isn't a God.:eek:

[caphorns]

If your god is so great, how come he made you a Hook 'em fan?

:texan:

Well, I did say you are a free moral agent and therefore have a right to choose between the good and the evil Sooner empire ;)

[SoonerWood]

For most people it doesn't affect how they live their life. It would seem to me that a firm belief of "when it's over, it's over" would produce an extreme hedonism.

That seems to be a common misconception. However, I don't think christianity has a monopoly on good morals. :D

[mdklatt]

It would seem to me that a firm belief of "when it's over, it's over" would produce an extreme hedonism.

If some people need a carrot and/or stick in order to behave, then religion is definitely a good thing.

[Hamhock]

That seems to be a common misconception. However, I don't think christianity has a monopoly on good morals. :D


I agree. Nearly all religions espouse good morals as some part of an effort to earn favor in the afterlife. But if there is no afterlife, why bother? If we all become worm food, why not adopt hedonism?

[Stoop Dawg]

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

God already had angels for that. Why is man here?

[Stoop Dawg]

For most people it doesn't affect how they live their life. It would seem to me that a firm belief of "when it's over, it's over" would produce an extreme hedonism.

I had to look that one up, so if there is some other connotation of which I am unaware, I apologize in advance.

Can't speak for anyone else, but given the literal definition of hedonism, I'd say it pretty much applies to me. I most definitely seek pleasure and avoid pain. However, I have learned that some short-term pain produces even greater long-term pleasure.

In fact, doesn't Christianity produce extreme hedonism? Aren't you all looking for the "pay off" at the end?

[Hamhock]

God already had angels for that. Why is man here?


Because God chose to create man.

Adam was talking to God.
"God, I want a companion. I want her to be smart, sexy, fun, hardworking, a great cook, compassionate, great housekeeper, etc."
God said "Wow, that is going to cost you".
Adam "How much?"
God "An arm and a leg".
Adam "What can I get for a rib?"

*rimshot*

[Hamhock]

I had to look that one up, so if there is some other connotation of which I am unaware, I apologize in advance.

Can't speak for anyone else, but given the literal definition of hedonism, I'd say it pretty much applies to me. I most definitely seek pleasure and avoid pain. However, I have learned that some short-term pain produces even greater long-term pleasure.

In fact, doesn't Christianity produce extreme hedonism? Aren't you all looking for the "pay off" at the end?


Not sure what you mean. If hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure at all costs, then I would say Christianity is the opposite. True, there is a reward at the end, but not while on earth.

[Stoop Dawg]

Because God chose to create man.

Oh, okay.

[Stoop Dawg]

Not sure what you mean. If hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure at all costs, then I would say Christianity is the opposite. True, there is a reward at the end, but not while on earth.

As I said, sometimes a little short-term pain is required to get more long-term pleasure. That's simple logic. I don't need religion to explain that one to me. If that doesn't meet the definition of hedonism then I guess it doesn't apply to either of us. If it does, then it applies to both of us.

And I'll be surprised if someone doesn't tell you that you've obviously not read the bible if you think there is no pay off while you're on the earth. At least that's what I get told when I unintentionally mis-quote it or interpret it differently than someone else.

[mdklatt]

But if there is no afterlife, why bother? If we all become worm food, why not adopt hedonism?

Because we don't all have narcissistic personality disorder?

Is God the only thing keeping you in line? Maybe God created religion to protect the non-religious....

[SoonerWood]

Not sure what you mean. If hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure at all costs, then I would say Christianity is the opposite. True, there is a reward at the end, but not while on earth.

Do you think that by being a Christian you aren't also hedonistic? The pleasure you get from going to church can be considered hedonistic.

What things do you do as a christian that you don't find pleasurable?

[Hamhock]

Do you think that by being a Christian you aren't also hedonistic? The pleasure you get from going to church can be considered hedonistic.

What things do you do as a christian that you don't find pleasurable?

hedonism
/heedniz’m/

• noun 1 the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence


You are technically correct. John Piper wrote a book called Desiring God that actually makes your claim. In the sense that hedonism means doing what feels good, maybe. In the sense that hedonism means pursuing self-indulgence, not so much.

[JohnnyMack]

I think it's time this thread was taken out behind the barn and shot.

[SoonerWood]

I think it's time this thread was taken out behind the barn and shot.

Thats usually the case by the time these reach page 2

[caphorns]

By its latin roots, Hedonism means a belief in pleasure. It is an absolutely appropriate word in this context - referring to your choice to believe in pleasure over all else. That's pretty much what a hedonist is - forgetting the very loose Webster's definition - someone who believes that pleasure (or self pleasure) is the sole aim of their life. And pretty much, you've said that's what you are about. Christians who live by the Bible often forgo many earthly pleasures not just to get to the next level, but also to live their life by Christ's example. Do you think Christ enjoyed the pleasure of torture at the hands of Pilot because he chose pleasure over pain? That there exists a sense of pleasure in accomplishment and seeing your assitance go forward, so be it. But the goal is the accomplishment (not the gloating over it). It's like setting a TD as a goal instead of focusing on how cool your endzone celebration is. To each there own I guess.

I forgot to add that the Christian concept of the afterlife is not the hedonistic 40 virgins concept (as good as that sounds right about now). Admittedly, as Christian as I am, I think God would really be testing me to spend a day in Hef's slippers.

[mdklatt]

Christians who live by the Bible often forgo many earthly pleasures not just to get to the next level, but also to live their life by Christ's example.

WWJD? Jesus would certainly want his own jet and a private airport to operate it out of.


http://www.airnav.com/airport/4T2

[Stoop Dawg]

Christians who live by the Bible often forgo many earthly pleasures not just to get to the next level, but also to live their life by Christ's example.

If I recall correctly, it was you who corrected me when I claimed that the Bible advocates poverty.