Finally salvation for ....Judas

Originally posted by orfeo
What I don't understand is why this is a news story. I've heard about alternative gospels pushing this line years ago.

And from the descriptions I've seen, this newly discovered text is gnostic in flavour. That's hardly news either.

Frankly, I blame the Da Vinci Code.

I'm pretty sure "experts" will soon be "discovering" details in the GJud which show how the "true Church" (which holds to teachings eerily similar to the modern liberal movement) was "suppressed" by the "Pauline faction".

EDIT: Cue froggy to make his usual "Iranaeus was a git" remarks.

Originally posted by stocken
Interesting. You blame the da vinci code for a 1700 year old rediscovered document. 🙄

I think it's the media coverage he's talking about.

Originally posted by stocken
Interesting. You blame the da vinci code for a 1700 year old rediscovered document. 🙄

No, I blame the da vinci code for the discovery being considered newsworthy.

EDIT: You see, other people could understand me.

Originally posted by orfeo
No, I blame the da vinci code for the discovery being considered newsworthy.

EDIT: You see, other people could understand me.

The bible is probably the most influential literature. What is important about this "re-discovery" is that is contradicts it and church dogma. And consider Pope John Pauls pronouncement on the same subject- this was apparently news worthy too (and guess what, this was before the Da vinci Code. .

Originally posted by orfeo
No, I blame the da vinci code for the discovery being considered newsworthy.

I suppose it's only newsworthy if it fits in well with your bible, eh?

Its interesting how most Christians nowadays take the 'approved' texts found in the Bible as fairly accurate and clear evidence for the existence of Jesus and for both his reported actions and resurection yet at the same time many other documents written at about the same time are dismissed as 'heretical' and 'inventions', solely on the basis that they report a conflicting or undesirable story.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The bible is probably the most influential literature. What is important about this "re-discovery" is that is contradicts it and church dogma. And consider Pope John Pauls pronouncement on the same subject- this was apparently news worthy too (and guess what, this was before the Da vinci Code. .

Okay, what neither you nor stocken seem to have read my first post. As I said there, this is HARDLY the first time an alternative gospel has been found!

Back in 1948 (?) the Dead Sea Scrolls made a splash I think, but other than that most of these discoveries are talked about in academic circles, not the mainstream media. Public interest is higher now simply because of THAT novel/forthcoming movie.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its interesting how most Christians nowadays take the 'approved' texts found in the Bible as fairly accurate and clear evidence for the existence of Jesus and for both his reported actions and resurection yet at the same time many other documents written at about the same time are dismissed as 'heretical' and 'inventions', solely on the basis that they report a conflicting or undesirable story.

Do you know what the word 'heretical' actually means? A text that says something different is heretical by definition. It doesn't have to be a perjorative term.

Originally posted by orfeo
Public interest is higher now simply because of THAT novel/forthcoming movie.

So the Da Vinci code did some good. What's the problem?

Originally posted by stocken
So the Da Vinci code did some good. What's the problem?

The only 'problem' I had in mind was that the general public has the attention span of a gnat, and all that most people will retain is 'hey, look, they found a different gospel!' - with no proper idea of its contents, or the fact that there are already many other non-canonical gospels ranging from credible to completely spurious that are known about.

Originally posted by orfeo
The only 'problem' I had in mind was that the general public has the attention span of a gnat, and all that most people will retain is 'hey, look, they found a different gospel!' - with no proper idea of its contents, or the fact that there are already many other non-canonical gospels ranging from credible to completely spurious that are known about.

At least it will serve to distract public attention from sensationalised accounts of priestly paedophilia, eh? Besides, the public fundamentally doesn't care.

Originally posted by orfeo
Okay, what neither you nor stocken seem to have read my first post. As I said there, this is HARDLY the first time an alternative gospel has been found!

Back in 1948 (?) the Dead Sea Scrolls made a splash I think, but other than that most of these discoveries are talked about in academic circles, not the mainstream media. Public interest is higher now simply because of THAT novel/forthcoming movie.

The Dead Sea scrolls provided corroborative evidence of Jesus and gave more historical accounts of that era. The interesting part of this gospel is that it blatantly contradicts the rest and opens up the possibility that there are even more suppressed gospels.

The novel has nothing to do with this contradiction and the debate on Judas has received many mentions in my state paper before this novel was even written.

Originally posted by orfeo
with no proper idea of its contents, or the fact that there are already many other non-canonical gospels ranging from credible to completely spurious that are known about.

Yes but how many other books? And how many of these contradict fundamental teachings? And more importantly, how many are credible (including imprimatur gospels)?

Originally posted by Conrau K
The interesting part of this gospel is that it blatantly contradicts the rest and opens up the possibility that there are even more suppressed gospels.

As I have said (twice), why is this interesting NOW? What was wrong with the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and I don't remember how many others?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
At least it will serve to distract public attention from sensationalised accounts of priestly paedophilia, eh?

Okay, I find that downright offensive.