Gospel according to Judas

Originally posted by rwingett
Because it contains almost no resemblence to what Jesus actually said?

So what did Jesus actually say then? How do you know the Bible as it stands now does not contain the most accurate reporting of what Jesus actually said?

Originally posted by Conrau K
While I agree that some communities would have rejected John's gospel, John's gospel is reasonably faithful to the accepted Jesus narrative that the apostles promulgated. Sure, each gospel espouses its own theologies, but they are fairly similar in the fundamentals. My point was that the gnostics are not consistent with the teachings of the apostles and hen ...[text shortened]... nostics substantially deviates from the apostolic kerygma.

I hope I'm making sense here.

Conrau: My point was that the gnostics are not consistent with the teachings of the apostles

Which apostles?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
So what did Jesus actually say then? How do you know the Bible as it stands now does not contain the most accurate reporting of what Jesus actually said?

I don't know exactly what Jesus actually said, but most of what is in the bible can be shown to have been invented much later. There is some scholarly work that has been done to get back to the original massage of what Jesus actually may have said. A widely accepted theory amongst biblical scholars is that there was likely a lost textual source for both Matthew and Luke, which has been dubbed the 'Q document' or the 'Q gospel.' If this document actually existed, it would have been composed very shortly after Jesus' death, which would give it a much greater authenticity than the later gospels. Naturally, extrapolating what may have been in 'Q' is a topic of much debate. But one thing is for certain - modern christianity bears almost no resemblence to what Jesus had been preaching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_gospel

But one thing is for certain - modern christianity bears almost no resemblence to what Jesus had been preaching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_gospel[/b]

That is a pretty bold statement. I agree that certain segments of Christianity have veered from Jesus was preaching - which was largely about the Reign of God - which included justice for the poor and care for the widow, and was largely in line with what the prophets had been preaching for centuries. But Christianity is as varied now as it was in the earliest days. There are mainline denominations that are trying to get past some modern contrivances that have developed. Unfortunately, all parts of the Christian spectrum claim that they are the ones trying to get back to what Jesus really intended. Instead, maybe we should try to figure out what God would have us do now - and work for peace, justice, and practicing the love of neighbor (even the neighbors that you don't really like or agree with). Unfortunately too many people would rather get in unending intelectual cockfights.

Originally posted by rwingett
Because it contains almost no resemblence to what Jesus actually said?

And you know this how?

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't know exactly what Jesus actually said, but most of what is in the bible can be shown to have been invented much later. There is some scholarly work that has been done to get back to the original massage of what Jesus actually may have said. A widely accepted theory amongst biblical scholars is that there was likely a lost textual source for both Mat ...[text shortened]... resemblence to what Jesus had been preaching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_gospel

What are you talking about? There is no evidence as to what the Q source is. There is some debate as to whether it even exists (assuming still that you accept the four source hypothesis). And assuming that it does exist, and eschewing any discussion on what it might have been, it really isn't that difficult to extrapolate what it would have contained (err duh! why do you think the Q source was postulated?)

And how might the Q source negate the authenticity of the Gospel's?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Conrau: My point was that the gnostics are not consistent with the teachings of the apostles

Which apostles?

I recommend you read the book of Acts, and better still, the letters of Paul. That should give you an idea.

It seems to me that there is a rather large margin of error when it comes to anyone being able to say that what we have today in the New Testament is any more than a collection of books adjudged to be worthy of inclusion by a council of the more popular worthies some tens or hundreds of years away from the actual events.

The Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, various Apocryphon ('secret' writing from eg James, John, Mark) it seems to me have not been included because they had little or no representation or popularity at the time? Or perhaps the councils were truely inspired and were able to better judge at that time what was spiritually correct?

The move from a position of absolute certainty (The Bible is Accurate) to one where the words and books that form the basis of knowledge are increasingly exposed as having been subject to interpretation/editing over a long period is very unsettling. Am I wrong to think this way?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
The move from a position of absolute certainty (The Bible is Accurate) to one where the words and books that form the basis of knowledge are increasingly exposed as having been subject to interpretation/editing over a long period is very unsettling. Am I wrong to think this way?

Of course you're not wrong in thinking that. Yours is a common feeling whenever someone moves past blind faith into a more deep understanding of Scripture. When one is challenged with such information like maybe Moses didn't write Genesis, or that the gospels were probably written a generation after Jesus' death, or that the same guy did not write the gospel of John, the epistle of John and the Reveletion of John, there are a few different possible responses. One is to disregard it all as heresy, turn a blind eye to modern scholarship and hold onto the Bible as absolute, unnegotiable truth. The other extreme is to dismiss it all entirely as childhood stories told by ignorant delusional people to make themselves feel better.

I suspect that both extremes have many adherents, and they are usually the most vocal, but I also believe that those that fall in between are the majority, and that you might be one of those. The fact is, when you move beyond a simplistic understanding of the Bible, it can be very painful. I can tell you that in my journey there was much pain because I had to let go of things that I held dear. I refused though, to ignore my intellect, and was able to come to a deeper and more powerful understanding of the Bible. In the end, I think my faith is stronger than before. Unfortunately, it was a process that took a few years and a lot of reading. But I would reccomend the works of Marcus Borg. His "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" is a powerful book for someone that is struggling with realities that seem harsh.

In a way, what it all boils down to is your definition of truth. Can a statement be true, even if it is not factual? In the Bible Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." If we were to get in a time machine and see Jesus, and find out that he never actually said that, would it be any less true?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I recommend you read the book of Acts, and better still, the letters of Paul. That should give you an idea.

I have. Why does Paul rate as some definitive source of Jesus' teachings? He never met Jesus. You're making a circular argument.

Originally posted by UncleRobb
That is a pretty bold statement. I agree that certain segments of Christianity have veered from Jesus was preaching - which was largely about the Reign of God - which included justice for the poor and care for the widow, and was largely in line with what the prophets had been preaching for centuries. But Christianity is as varied now as it was in the ear ...[text shortened]... gree with). Unfortunately too many people would rather get in unending intelectual cockfights.

The claim that christianity is as varied now as it was in the earliest days is completely ridiculous. You only succeed in displaying your ignorance on the topic when you say such things. From the Ebionites to the Marcionites to the Gnostics to the Proto-Orthodox christians, there were wildly different and contradictory interpretations of christianity in the first two centuries after Jesus' death. If the Marcionites had triumphed, for example, christianity would be radically different than it is today. The scope of the topic is far broader than being just an "intellectual cockfight" as you so dismissively claim. For theists such as yourself, stripping away all the distortions, errors and falsehoods that have been woven into bible goes right to the heart of figuring out what god would supposedly have you do now. I should think there would be few questions of greater importance to you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have. Why does Paul rate as some definitive source of Jesus' teachings? He never met Jesus. You're making a circular argument.

Paul doesn't "rate" as some definitve source (and I really do not understand where I made any circular argument. I would be very much excited if you could explain where I made any such fallacy.) You really are just obfuscating the issue!

This is the logic of my argument:
- The basic Petrine Kerygma (that Jesus was saviour, who died, and was resurrected) is preached abroad.
- The gnostics which are inconsistent with the Pertine Kerygma are rejected because they are unfamiliar.

Paul reveals an insight into the nascent Catholicism within the Christian communities. He refers to five cities to which communities should look to for guidance (since they are instructed in the Petrine Kerygma.)

I only suggested looking at Paul's writing to view his pastoral issues not his theological issues. While I agree that Paul never met Jesus (except in revelation?), this does not compromise his account of the communities (which are the best witness to the words of Jesus after his direct witnesses).

Originally posted by Conrau K
Paul doesn't "rate" as some definitve source (and I really do not understand where I made any circular argument. I would be very much excited if you could explain where I made any such fallacy.) You really are just obfuscating the issue!

This is the logic of my argument:
- The basic Petrine Kerygma (that Jesus was saviour, who died, and was resurrected) ...[text shortened]... e communities (which are the best witness to the words of Jesus after his direct witnesses).

Arguing that certain people are the apostles because they taught a creed that was subsequently accepted as the Apostolic Creed is circular. I suggest you read Nemesio's posts again. The fact is that Gnosticism was probably more popular than the Pertine Kerygma at various points in early Church history; the doctrines of Marcion and Valentinus seem to have been held by the majority of Christians at various points.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I have. Why does Paul rate as some definitive source of Jesus' teachings? He never met Jesus. You're making a circular argument.

Christianity should in fact be called Paulism, it was Paul who took over and got it going in Rome, it was Paul who decided if there was to be a christianity in Rome there had better be miracles. In short, its not the same religion that Christ started.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
As I understand it 'heresy' is a rather meaningless phrase, except when considered against what most others were saying (the 'orthodox'😉. From what you have said and I have read to be a heretic you were simply in a minority, and with the coalescing establishment were eventually sidelined. Does this mean that the early Bible grew from the most popular ...[text shortened]... n stone' was actually quite a fluid and dynamic set of writings/documents/books whatever.

I will do my best to provide the shortest, reasonably complete
answer to your questions. My answer is based on the studies of those
Bible scholars who approach the texts from a secular standpoint --
that is, they make no presumption of faith on the texts, viewing them
as their colleagues might view the Iliad, e.g..

First: Heresy is a meaningless term without establishing Orthodoxy;
that is, the Gnostic groups (and they were by no means uniform)
considered the 'mainstream' Christian movement heretical, and vice
versa. The only meaning that heresy might have is if there is power
to back up the claim; that is, Gnostic Christianity never developed the
sort of centralization of belief within their take on Jesus to allow them
to acquire the sort of political strength to compel people that
'mainstream' Christianity was heretical. This was, in no small part,
because of their fundamentally ascetic philosophical stance which
made large congregated efforts somewhat difficult to achieve.

The development of the canon by the 'mainstream' church was
partially reactionary; Marcion and people like him were asserting that
certain books were Scripture and that other books were not. Given
that the 'mainstream' church had developed a certain degree of
political clout as a result of Constantine's conversion and legalization
of Christianity, the subsequent councils which ratified the contents of
the canon carried weight within Christendom. That is, it had the
explicit endorsement of the Holy Roman Empire. Consequently, what
they said stuck, and what they opposed became heresy.

Now, all that having been said, it is pretty clear that the Synoptic
Gospels (Sts Mark, Matthew, and Luke) were representative samples
(albeit somewhat edited) of the earliest Christian tradition and, as
biographies go, the most consistent. St John's material is
biographically irreconcilable with the Synoptics and its theology has a
vastly different emphasis, but its popularity with those leaning
gnostic (but not full-blown) made its inclusion a logical political choice.
Furthermore, as a (proto-)Gnostic text, it is also very early (circa. 95 CE)
which means, again, it has a certain authority as a teaching (that is,
within the possible lifetime of a student of an Apostle).

The church council which ratified the canon was not so much interested
in 'the historical Jesus' (although, to be sure, St Jerome was a
tremendous scholar), but as a natural consequnce of age, the oldest
documents tended to have the most theological currency.

Rwingett brings up (briefly) the idea of the so-called 'Q' source. This
gets into the genesis of the documents which comprise the canonical
gospels. In short, it is clear that Sts Luke and Matthew did not write
their narratives using one (oral) source, but, instead, used at least
two written ones (St Luke, himself, makes this clear in his
prologue, referring explicitly to the 'witnesses' who handed him his
information, which he then refined after investigation). These two
written sources were St Mark (which provided the bounty of the
biographical information) and 'Q' (which provided the bounty of the
'sayings' or 'teachings'😉. Each, then, added their own material which
is unique to their own gospel (St Luke, e.g., added the Prodigal Son;
St Matthew, e.g., added the Final Judgment).

'Q,' however, does not exist in a tangible format; it is something that
Bible scholars have surmised. However, its existence is supported by
the discovery of the Gospel of St Thomas which, too, is a 'Sayings
Gospel' (that is, lacking biographical information).

There are many excellent texts which explain the support for this
(widely accepted, including many mainstream Churches) theory. If
you are interested in learning more about this (and the support for the
theories, most importantly), I would be happy to provide you with a
few citations.

Nemesio