RE: 'Gospel of Judas' Called An Authentic Fabrication

<snip>

<quote> The answer in brief is that the selection was made by the
spiritual consciousness of godly people. In order to appreciate what
this statement means, let us note the activity of the Holy Spirit in the
affairs of men. Both Scripture and experience make it abundantly clear
that in the lives that are surrendered to God there is definite light
and guidance that come from the Holy Spirit. Men become wondrously wise
spiritually when they permit Him to instruct them. Jesus spoke of this
to His disciples when He assured them of the Spirit's help whenever they
came into a difficult situation: "The Holy Spirit shall teach you in
that very hour what ye ought to say" (Luke 12:12). And on another
occasion he told them that the Holy Spirit "shall guide you into all
truth" (John 16:13).</quote>

This raises a question however, why are personal spiritual findings not
as relevant as those who selected the Canon? The Gnostics were sincere
in their beliefs so why are gnostic texts somehow less relevant? Or even
heretical?
If written documents or human artefacts are suspect then why do we trust
that the Bible is different?

TTV: I don't know the answer to the question that Pim poses. However, I'm
sure that you cannot equate the guidance of the Holy Spirit with sincerity.
Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy may also have been sincere but that does
not mean that they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

> For a document to have any credibility, some sort of verification is
> needed and, the older the document is, the more difficult it is to
> authenticate it. This applies to written documents as well as it does
> to paintings.
>
> It is possible that, by "studying all material form those days" we can
> get a more complete picture of Jesus and of Christianity but how
> likely is it that our fundamental understanding of the historical
> events will change? If somebody were to find a copy of the Jerusalem
> Post dated ~33 AD that contained an article by an investigative
> reporter who had interviewed the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and the
> Roman soldiers, and had concluded that they were off their rocker and
> who had first-hand evidence that a huge lever had been used to roll
> the stone away from the tomb, he or she might have something.
> Although, even in that case, the authenticity of the document would
> have been called in question and we would be in situation of "he said,
> she said." So, about the only evidence we can expect is going to be
> circumstantial.
>
> To put this into a more current context, what evidence would you
> accept that Neil Armstrong really landed on the Moon and that this was
> not an elaborate hoax? After all, the only evidence we have, as far
> as I am aware, is in electronic form or word-of mouth.
>
And some pictures and other 'circumstantial evidence'... But that is not
the issue here. The issue is why some of the documents made it into the
gospels and others didn;t and what we could learn from studying any and
all information rather than that which was selected?

TTV: Pictures and other "circumstantial evidence" can be faked. My guess is
that we believe that Neil Armstrong stood on the Moon because it is
plausible and because we trust the scientists and engineers and because we
tend(ed) to believe the government. As to which documents were included and
which were not, again, I would think that the Holy Spirit worked in the
hearts and minds of the early church fathers and that the canon presents a
consistent message. Certainly, we can study documents that didn't make it
into the NT but that doesn't necessarily put them on even footing with the
NT texts.

<snip>
<quote>
These are books which describe the life of Jesus*. *Gospel is a
translation of the Greek word "/euangelion/" which means "/good news/."
About 50 gospels were written in the first and second century CE; each
was believed to be accurate by various groups within the early Christian
movement. Four of them (/Mark, Matthew, Luke /and/ John/) were accepted
by the early Christian movement as inspired by God. They were approved
for inclusion in the official canon during the 4th century CE, and are
found today in every Bible. Why were there only four? St. Irenaeus
explained: "/There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up
the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right
that there be four gospels./"</quote>

and the Gospel of Judas http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_j.htm

<quote>The /Gospel of Judas/ was revered by some ancient Gnostic
Christian <http://www.religioustolerance.org/gnostic.htm> groups.
Gnostics were one of the three main movements within early Christianity
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm>. They have survived to
the present day. Gnostics believe that they have secret knowledge about
God, humanity and the rest of the universe of which the general
population is unaware. Like the other two branches of the early
Christian movement -- Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity --
they believed that they alone truly understood Christ's message, and
that other streams of thought within Christianity had misinterpreted
Jesus' mission and sayings. Gnostics were almost wiped out before the
end of the 5th century CE <http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm> by
mainline Christianity heresy hunters and the Roman Empire. They are now
experiencing a period of rapid growth.</quote>

They (gnostics) believe that they are the only ones who truly understood
Christ's message... What makes their claim more or less relevant?

TTV: Again, I would say the guidance of the Holy Sprit. If not, then all
bets are off and any document could be considered to be equally relevant.
You may think that referring to the Holy Spirit is a "cop out" on my part
but citing any other force, sincerity, skill , intuition or what-have-you
has to diminish the uniqueness of what we believe.

And then the gospel on Judas hardly seems clear
http://www.religioustolerance.org/gospj1.htm

<quote>

The four canonic gospels agree that Judas Iscariot was one of Jesus
disciples, and that he betrayed Jesus to the temple priests and guard.
The repeated use of the word "betray" emphasizes the nature of Judas'
actions.

One strange aspect of the gospels' story is that the priests were
apparently unable to identify Jesus without paying for Judas' help. Yet,
Jesus had been welcomed as a hero by the people of Jerusalem in a great
celebration a few days earlier. He would presumably be recognizable by
many of the temple personnel.

TTV: That's not so strange to me: it was dark when Jesus was arrested [John
18:2 mentions torches and lanterns]. Torches and lanterns are not as good as
flashlights to identify people in the dark. Nor may the priests and
soldiers have been aware of the size of Jesus' entourage.

Another strange aspect is that, according to "John," Jesus was aware
that Judas Iscariot would betray him in the future. Yet Jesus chose him
to be a disciple anyway. Some theologians view Judas as being an
essential part in God's plan to have his son tortured to death by the
Roman Army <http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_jesu.htm>. If Judas
was merely carrying out Jesus' and God the Father's wishes, then he can
hardly be criticized for his act of betrayal. Yet "Matthew" and "Mark"
record Jesus as saying that it would have been better for Judas if he
had never been born.</quote>

This is fascinating stuff and shows how complex these issues really are.

TTV: Indeed! This *is* complex. Luke echoes Matthew and Mark's comment
[Luke 22:22]. And, yet, Jesus basically told Judas "to get on with it" [John
13:27: "What you are about to do, do quickly,"]. However, Judas had remorse
[Mat 27:5; Acts 1:18] and that makes me doubt that he was "just following
[God's] orders.

Chuck
Received on Sat Apr 8 22:10:40 2006