Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/6/2006 1:50:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 2:07:49 PM EDT
Coptic documents have shed light on many ancient Christian traditions and rituals.

Definitely worth study.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 6:05:01 AM EDT
I've always thought that Judas got the bad rep for doing what he had to do.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:07:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Javak:
I've always thought that Judas got the bad rep for doing what he had to do.



That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard all day. Only my co-worker Sean has made a more ludicrous statement recently.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:20:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By Javak:
I've always thought that Judas got the bad rep for doing what he had to do.



That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard all day. Only my co-worker Sean has made a more ludicrous statement recently.



So, would it have been better for Jesus to wait around and die of old age?
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 10:21:50 AM EDT
Didnt Judas hang himself? Sorry I dont know much about the bible, I should read it more.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 11:37:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By skinnysarge79:

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By Javak:
I've always thought that Judas got the bad rep for doing what he had to do.



That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard all day. Only my co-worker Sean has made a more ludicrous statement recently.



So, would it have been better for Jesus to wait around and die of old age?



You apparently have no understanding of agency.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 11:39:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Javak:
I've always thought that Judas got the bad rep for doing what he had to do.



Calvinist!
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 11:57:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By skinnysarge79:

So, would it have been better for Jesus to wait around and die of old age?





Link Posted: 4/7/2006 12:10:27 PM EDT
I believe Na. Geo channel is running a show about the alleged book of Judas this Sunday.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 7:03:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2006 7:07:45 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By Javak:
I've always thought that Judas got the bad rep for doing what he had to do.



Tried to IM ya but there is a 4k limit. I will get around to making post about that this weekend.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 1:43:18 AM EDT
Pure idiocy.

Nothing more.

Eric The(SonOfAbraham)Hun
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 5:09:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/8/2006 5:35:41 PM EDT by 0ldGuy]
www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/Ehrman1.html

I think ones questions about Christianity might be better answered by this man than by an "attorney under contract to a federal agency".

I will wait to hear what Prof. Erhman has to say.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 6:20:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:
I believe Na. Geo channel is running a show about the alleged book of Judas this Sunday.


Alleged?

Link Posted: 4/9/2006 4:00:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hydgirl:

Originally Posted By PBIR:
I believe Na. Geo channel is running a show about the alleged book of Judas this Sunday.


Alleged?




Yes, that is what I said.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 4:11:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 9:14:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 9:15:03 AM EDT by EricTheHun]

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:
www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/Ehrman1.html

I think ones questions about Christianity might be better answered by this man than by an "attorney under contract to a federal agency".

I will wait to hear what Prof. Erhman has to say.


Again, you simply do not understand Christianity.

Period.

So, loosen that frontlet, foolish, foolish fellow.

It appears to be cutting off circulation....to your cerebrum.

Eric The(TightTefillinCauseTendentiousness)Hun
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 2:16:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2006 4:28:40 PM EDT by 0ldGuy]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Again, you simply do not understand Christianity.

Period.

True, Christianity makes no sense to me at all. I saw a few minutes of Prof. Erhman on the Daily Show promoting his book Misquoting Jesus.

I found him enlightening and hope his take on the Gospel of Judas will be the same.



So, loosen that frontlet, foolish, foolish fellow.

It appears to be cutting off circulation....to your cerebrum.

Not to worry, I assure you that everything is comfortably snug.

Eric The(TightTefillinCauseTendentiousness)Hun

Link Posted: 4/9/2006 3:25:31 PM EDT
I would think that the discovery of such an ancient text would at least shed light on some of the thoughts/legends/stories/truths (or any combination thereof) of the time. Regardless of the content, unless it is a complete forgery, it can help to paint a more complete picture of the early church and the social and political environment of the time.

I hope the scholars involved in its study will rise above the Jew v Christian thing and consider it for what it is, without letting their biases or prejudices get in the way.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 4:25:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By astro:
I would think that the discovery of such an ancient text would at least shed light on some of the thoughts/legends/stories/truths (or any combination thereof) of the time. Regardless of the content, unless it is a complete forgery, it can help to paint a more complete picture of the early church and the social and political environment of the time.

I hope the scholars involved in its study will rise above the Jew v Christian thing and consider it for what it is, without letting their biases or prejudices get in the way.


I think that's why discovery of such texts upsets fundamentalists so much. They have this idea in their head that early Christianity was some how a more pure version of the splintered Christianity which exists today. That couldn't be further from the truth.

If nothing else, these texts prove that Christianity was at least as diverse, if not moreso, than it is today. Very early Christianity had no such thing as orthodoxy.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 4:54:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hydgirl:

I think that's why discovery of such texts upsets fundamentalists so much. They have this idea in their head that early Christianity was some how a more pure version of the splintered Christianity which exists today. That couldn't be further from the truth.

It does not take much to upset a fundamentalist, the fact that this discovery was announced as the Christian world prepares for Easter must be rather awkward for them.

If nothing else, these texts prove that Christianity was at least as diverse, if not moreso, than it is today. Very early Christianity had no such thing as orthodoxy.



I guess diverse is a good word to use.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 5:16:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hydgirl:

I think that's why discovery of such texts upsets fundamentalists so much. They have this idea in their head that early Christianity was some how a more pure version of the splintered Christianity which exists today. That couldn't be further from the truth.



And who is this? I don't know any Christians that bother to learn about their religion who aren't aware of Synod and the noncanonical books. I guess you believe all Buddhists are kung-fu experts too?
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 5:23:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hydgirl:

Originally Posted By astro:
I would think that the discovery of such an ancient text would at least shed light on some of the thoughts/legends/stories/truths (or any combination thereof) of the time. Regardless of the content, unless it is a complete forgery, it can help to paint a more complete picture of the early church and the social and political environment of the time.

I hope the scholars involved in its study will rise above the Jew v Christian thing and consider it for what it is, without letting their biases or prejudices get in the way.


I think that's why discovery of such texts upsets fundamentalists so much. They have this idea in their head that early Christianity was some how a more pure version of the splintered Christianity which exists today. That couldn't be further from the truth.

If nothing else, these texts prove that Christianity was at least as diverse, if not moreso, than it is today. Very early Christianity had no such thing as orthodoxy.



Very early Christianity was orthodox. Upon the deaths of the Apostles, it gradually became just as splintered as it is today. The Copts, the Gnostics, etc all had their traditions and rituals, many of which were rooted in Christianity but differed from what we have in the New Testament. This does not invalidate them out of hand, but is rather an example of a somewhat rudderless ship. The opinions of Origen can be argued to be significantly different from teachings of the very primitive church, i.e., that which existed when Christ and the Twelve were alive.
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 5:23:40 PM EDT
Doesn't upset me one little itty bitty bit

What's upsetting is that some folks who think they know Christianity seem to believe that by 250 AD to 350 AD Christianity was still searching for a message.

The Message was completed in the early part of the First Century AD.

And yet, St. Paul was contending with gnostic heresies even at this early date.

You would expect otherwise?

Satan did everything he could to destroy what cannot be destroyed....but the very gates of hell could not, and can never, prevail against it.

Of course there were heresies that were created when orthodox Christianity met other Middle Eastern religions, but orthodox Christianity won out.

And it's still winning after 2,000 years.

Get over it.



Eric The(SonOfAbraham)Hun
Link Posted: 4/9/2006 5:50:14 PM EDT
The "gospel of Judas" isn't anything close to new news. The ancient church knew about it in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and ruled it out as heresy.

It's just the "man" trying to get the focus away from the real reason for the Easter season. Anybody see the thing on NBC on Friday? I think? they brought up the supposed newly discovered "gospel of judas", a hairbrained theory that Jesus was really walking on ice not liquid water and some other thing. Can't remember what though.

Link Posted: 4/10/2006 7:00:23 AM EDT
An English translation of the "Gospel of Judas" may be found here:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/gospel_of_judas/#English%20Translation
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 7:19:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Doesn't upset me one little itty bitty bit

What's upsetting is that some folks who think they know Christianity seem to believe that by 250 AD to 350 AD Christianity was still searching for a message.

The Message was completed in the early part of the First Century AD.

And yet, St. Paul was contending with gnostic heresies even at this early date.

You would expect otherwise?

Satan did everything he could to destroy what cannot be destroyed....but the very gates of hell could not, and can never, prevail against it.

Of course there were heresies that were created when orthodox Christianity met other Middle Eastern religions, but orthodox Christianity won out.

And it's still winning after 2,000 years.

Get over it.



Eric The(SonOfAbraham)Hun



Very good point, ETH. Very true.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 4:26:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Doesn't upset me one little itty bitty bit

What's upsetting is that some folks who think they know Christianity seem to believe that by 250 AD to 350 AD Christianity was still searching for a message.

The Message was completed in the early part of the First Century AD.

And yet, St. Paul was contending with gnostic heresies even at this early date.

You would expect otherwise?

Satan did everything he could to destroy what cannot be destroyed....but the very gates of hell could not, and can never, prevail against it.

Of course there were heresies that were created when orthodox Christianity met other Middle Eastern religions, but orthodox Christianity won out.

And it's still winning after 2,000 years.

Get over it.



Eric The(SonOfAbraham)Hun



Very good point, ETH. Very true.


But who, exactly, decided what heresy actually is? It wasn't Jesus. It wasn't even Paul. It was Iranaeus, Bishop of Lyon. He decided what was heretical and what wasn't. He invented and defined the concept. And thanks to his writings, we actually know more about the gnostics now than if he had never written anything against them. The Gospel of Judas, we know from his writings, actually dates from around 180 AD (around the same time that the Gospel of John was written, I believe).

Speaking of Paul, just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to interpret an epistle. Elaine Pagles wrote a book on exactly that subject called The Gnostic Paul: A Gnostic Exegis of the Pauline Letters. There is more than one way to think.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 5:07:21 PM EDT
I just say it in the new National Geographic that came out today. Looks like a good read.
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 5:08:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard all day. Only my co-worker Sean has made a more ludicrous statement recently.



Tell Sean I said "Hi".
Link Posted: 4/10/2006 5:46:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Rodent:

Originally Posted By Shane333:
That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard all day. Only my co-worker Sean has made a more ludicrous statement recently.



Tell Sean I said "Hi".



Link Posted: 4/11/2006 5:48:45 PM EDT
Just reading the first few paragraphs of that article reeks of ego and self-centerness from the man that did a selfish and cowardly act.
Nothing new there.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 1:47:07 PM EDT
Has anyone else actually read the text of the "Gospel of Judas" yet?

I found it very much in line with the Nag Hammadi documents, and expect that it will be neither more or less accepted by Christians than the other Gnostic texts.

It is very interesting to learn how Hellenic thought was intertwined with early "branches" of Christianity or Christian-related philosophy (I do not know if most Christians nowadays consider Gnosticism a branch of Christianity or not... I tend to think "not")
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 2:04:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By psyops4fun:
Has anyone else actually read the text of the "Gospel of Judas" yet?

I found it very much in line with the Nag Hammadi documents, and expect that it will be neither more or less accepted by Christians than the other Gnostic texts.

It is very interesting to learn how Hellenic thought was intertwined with early "branches" of Christianity or Christian-related philosophy (I do not know if most Christians nowadays consider Gnosticism a branch of Christianity or not... I tend to think "not")



You are correct that Hellenic thought did creep into the early "branches" of the Church. It was something Paul addressed.

I don't know about other Christian Churches, but I know the LDS Church doesn't look favorably on "Gnosticism" for the same reasons Paul wasn't a fan of it.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 2:51:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:

Originally Posted By psyops4fun:
Has anyone else actually read the text of the "Gospel of Judas" yet?

I found it very much in line with the Nag Hammadi documents, and expect that it will be neither more or less accepted by Christians than the other Gnostic texts.

It is very interesting to learn how Hellenic thought was intertwined with early "branches" of Christianity or Christian-related philosophy (I do not know if most Christians nowadays consider Gnosticism a branch of Christianity or not... I tend to think "not")



You are correct that Hellenic thought did creep into the early "branches" of the Church. It was something Paul addressed.

I don't know about other Christian Churches, but I know the LDS Church doesn't look favorably on "Gnosticism" for the same reasons Paul wasn't a fan of it.



I find that interesting, I have always viewed the LDS Church as a new type of Gnosticism as opposed to the historical forms of Gnosticism present in the first few centuries of Christianity.

Harold Bloom called it American Gnosticism.



Top Top