Unfinished Refinished #2
A few months ago I got this link from Bane. (For what it's worth, the "Arabic" in the header says "Middle East Online", but not in Arabic; it's English written in Arabic script.)
Bane said at the time, and I quote:
This so-called "Gospel of Judas" is no different than the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" that ignorant people pay attention to. After the Bible was largely finished being written by such men as Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, and the like, different groups tried to latch onto the success of Christianity by writing their own beliefs down in the same fashion, attributing the words to Jesus, and attributing the books themselves to the Apostles. That's why you have documents like these, attributed to the Apostles, but completely out of line with legitimate orthodoxy. It's precisely the reason for the formation of the Canon.
I'll make an effort in the next day or two to write a post explaining my point of view on the Canon, and how it applies both to my study of Christian and Apocryphal literature and modern groups outside the orthodox Christian community. For now, though, just know that if I ever have occasion to read a copy of the Gospel of Judas, I'll look at it in the same way that I look at the Gospel of Thomas: as an apocryphal source, exemplifying nothing more than the attempts by the Gnostics to have their beliefs seen as legitimate through piggy-backing it on the success of Christianity. Had Islam, or Mithras worship, or Isis worship been the growing faith at the time, the Gnostic gospels would have been attributed to those faiths. They are wholly outside the legitimate realm of Christendom.
Dig?
(Link via Bane from back in April.)
Bane said at the time, and I quote:
I Am Just Dying...
...to read this.
I've heard rumors about it for years, but have not seen a peep. (Can you see a peep?)
Interesting times...
This so-called "Gospel of Judas" is no different than the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" that ignorant people pay attention to. After the Bible was largely finished being written by such men as Peter, Paul, John, Matthew, and the like, different groups tried to latch onto the success of Christianity by writing their own beliefs down in the same fashion, attributing the words to Jesus, and attributing the books themselves to the Apostles. That's why you have documents like these, attributed to the Apostles, but completely out of line with legitimate orthodoxy. It's precisely the reason for the formation of the Canon.
I'll make an effort in the next day or two to write a post explaining my point of view on the Canon, and how it applies both to my study of Christian and Apocryphal literature and modern groups outside the orthodox Christian community. For now, though, just know that if I ever have occasion to read a copy of the Gospel of Judas, I'll look at it in the same way that I look at the Gospel of Thomas: as an apocryphal source, exemplifying nothing more than the attempts by the Gnostics to have their beliefs seen as legitimate through piggy-backing it on the success of Christianity. Had Islam, or Mithras worship, or Isis worship been the growing faith at the time, the Gnostic gospels would have been attributed to those faiths. They are wholly outside the legitimate realm of Christendom.
Dig?
(Link via Bane from back in April.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home