Gospel according to Judas

What, if anything, does this change in your life?

Does this make you uneasy about the structure of the New Testament, the possibility that a council of the influential selected texts from a broader spread of document available?

Does this mean that the Bible as we know it has been written (or edited) by people we now no longer recognise?

The importance of the accumulated knowledge of 'civilisation' has been documented in the Bible, but can we still read it all?

I am Saul, travelling....

Originally posted by snowinscotland
What, if anything, does this change in your life?

Does this make you uneasy about the structure of the New Testament, the possibility that a council of the influential selected texts from a broader spread of document available?

Does this mean that the Bible as we know it has been written (or edited) by people we now no longer recognise?

The ...[text shortened]... has been documented in the Bible, but can we still read it all?

I am Saul, travelling....

The Bible is:
66 different books from ~40 different writers, they span a great deal
of time from the first of the 66 books to the last, some refer to other
books not included in the 66 books too. I wouldn't be suprised if
someone finds another book that should be included, but like many
things spiritual, you really need to examine very carefully.
Kelly

Originally posted by snowinscotland
What, if anything, does this change in your life?

Does this make you uneasy about the structure of the New Testament, the possibility that a council of the influential selected texts from a broader spread of document available?

Does this mean that the Bible as we know it has been written (or edited) by people we now no longer recognise?

The ...[text shortened]... has been documented in the Bible, but can we still read it all?

I am Saul, travelling....

It changes very little, except my deepening lack of respect for the media, as they pounced upon this find as if it were significant.

The Gospel of Judas can't be dated to before the mid-2nd century, and thus could not possibly have been written by Judas. As is typical with many of these 'secret Gospels' it shows signs of clear Gnostic influence, and thus does not reflect the actual words of Jesus nearly as well as the synoptic Gospels (which are also dated much earlier, thus making it plausible that the authors were eyewitnesses or under the scrutiny of eyewitnesses).

Originally posted by Darfius
It changes very little, except my deepening lack of respect for the media, as they pounced upon this find as if it were significant.

The Gospel of Judas can't be dated to before the mid-2nd century, and thus could not possibly have been written by Judas. As is typical with many of these 'secret Gospels' it shows signs of clear Gnostic influence, and thus ...[text shortened]... aking it plausible that the authors were eyewitnesses or under the scrutiny of eyewitnesses).

Are you familiar with the writings of Elaine Pagels? She has written some good books on the gnostic gospels.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Are you familiar with the writings of Elaine Pagels? She has written some good books on the gnostic gospels.

I have not [read any], since reading some very poor reviews of her work. She places too much emphasis on subjective experience, often to the detriment of historical facts. If you wished to defend some of her arguments, however, I think I could manage without having her books as reference.

Just had a brief look to discover just who Elaine Pagels is - I didn't know - and the few references look interesting...

I guess the whole issue for me is the defence of the Bible by some as letter by letter accurate and true; I find that very hard to understand. The ease with which the world seems recently to have slipped into a polarisation of ideology is increasingly foremost in my thoughts as I look at the defence of recent conflicts by those 'morally' concerned...

Is the Bible the word of God, or the word of a council of men?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Just had a brief look to discover just who Elaine Pagels is - I didn't know - and the few references look interesting...

I guess the whole issue for me is the defence of the Bible by some as letter by letter accurate and true; I find that very hard to understand. The ease with which the world seems recently to have slipped into a polarisation of id ...[text shortened]... hose 'morally' concerned...

Is the Bible the word of God, or the word of a council of men?

What do you mean by council?

Originally posted by Darfius
I have not [read any], since reading some very poor reviews of her work. She places too much emphasis on subjective experience, often to the detriment of historical facts. If you wished to defend some of her arguments, however, I think I could manage without having her books as reference.

Oh I don't have any need to defend any particular argument of hers. I just think it helpful to read a variety of sources.

Originally posted by Darfius
What do you mean by council?

a group of men/women/spiritual leaders who selected texts to be included in the Bible

Originally posted by kirksey957
Oh I don't have any need to defend any particular argument of hers. I just think it helpful to read a variety of sources.

Ditto.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Just had a brief look to discover just who Elaine Pagels is - I didn't know - and the few references look interesting...

I guess the whole issue for me is the defence of the Bible by some as letter by letter accurate and true; I find that very hard to understand. The ease with which the world seems recently to have slipped into a polarisation of id ...[text shortened]... hose 'morally' concerned...

Is the Bible the word of God, or the word of a council of men?

Upon learning what you meant by council, then I would say it is both. I would note that the canonization of the New Testament was a 'bottoms up' process, wherein the church at large gave weight to certain scriptures based on apostilic authority and their respective bishops then felt justified in voting for canonization.

Originally posted by Darfius
She places too much emphasis on subjective experience, often to the detriment of historical facts.

LOL! This forum is full of priceless statements, but yours is the
quintessential definition of psychological projection.

She is a historian who, in no small part, covers the evolution of how
the canon came to be the accepted one and, as a consequence, how
other texts came to be regarded as heretical.

She places almost no emphasis on 'subjective experience,' because,
as a historian, she lets the data inform her, not her opinion shape the
data.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
Upon learning what you meant by council, then I would say it is both. I would note that the canonization of the New Testament was a 'bottoms up' process, wherein the church at large gave weight to certain scriptures based on apostilic authority and their respective bishops then felt justified in voting for canonization.

How convenient that you don't accept the council's canonization of
the complete Old Testament by rejecting the seven so-called
Apocrypha! They were right about the N.T. but not the O.T.?

You're a riot!

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
Upon learning what you meant by council, then I would say it is both. I would note that the canonization of the New Testament was a 'bottoms up' process, wherein the church at large gave weight to certain scriptures based on apostilic authority and their respective bishops then felt justified in voting for canonization.

Please bear with me - as I have said I am a traveller...

I understood the Bible to be a translation by King James, but there are further texts are there not - looks as if I have further reading to do...

My question in regard to the Judas, or other 'Gospels', the texts, books or documents selected for inclusion or exclusion were selected during a biblical canon by revelations to the leadership of a divinely sanctioned religious institution - a 'council' as I have called it, of men. The selection of these books is guided by God. That is what you are saying, Yes?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The Bible is:
66 different books from ~40 different writers, they span a great deal
of time from the first of the 66 books to the last, some refer to other
books not included in the 66 books too. I wouldn't be suprised if
someone finds another book that should be included, but like many
things spiritual, you really need to examine very carefully.
Kelly

Sorry to jump about like this, but which if any additional books should we examine?