Total Motorcycle Community Forums

This has been fun to read about the last couple days, have you guys been following the story at all? Part of it seems like a huge publicity stunt by National Geographic to get higher ratings for their 2 hour special on it, but beyond that the very idea (i know it's been putted around for a while, just like Dan Brown's idea's have from the Da Vinci code) making it more mainstream is interesting.

For those of you'll who hadn't heard about it yet, here's a link to an interesting interview regarding the Gospel.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 481572.cms

And this is one that gives it a little bit more of an objective view from the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4887222.stm

There is no question about the authenticity of the Gospel . National Geographic funded the restoration .
What I think is that it's gonna put a whole lot of peoples panties in a bunch .
Regards, Wizzard

I don't think it'll make any difference at all. There was some documentation that Mary Magdeline was a desciple (and Jesus' wife) and had a gospel too, but the "powers that be" declared it heresy... They'll do the same here too.

Hey, folks.

I am sure the "Gospel of Judas" will help sell a lot of issues for National Geographic, and I am also sure it will have its value as a historical insight. But, I think the reason folks get up in arms over something like this is because of the wrong idea that this challenges existing understandings of Jesus.

I have a lot of wonderfully devout Christian friends, in many denominations. They all have great reverence for the Bible, at the very least, and some of them (IMHO) even seem to deify it over its intended message.

But, what very few Christians stop to consider (or more generally, probably very few people in any religion with 'sacred writings'), is where the Bible (or other sacred writings) came from.

The existence of a "Gospel of Judas" isn't in the grand scheme of things a surprise or a big deal. There are dozens of other "gospels" and writings written in the same period as the New Testament of which we still have copies. And many of these were originally viewed as "scripture" by various groups of early Christians. The New Testament, as we know it today-- an exact set of 27 books/letters-- wasn't per se handed out by Jesus before he left. And it wasn't handed out by the Apostles, or even people in their lifetimes. At the end of the first century (about 65-70 years after the crucifixion of Jesus), there were dozens and dozens of gospels and letters floating around the greater Christian community. From one church to the next, different gospels and letters were used as scripture. In the early church, the emphasis was on preaching and living tradition, supplemented by these writings. Over the next few centuries, the early church(or churches, as there were always multiple opinions...) gradually selected the 27 writings of the current New Testament, and singled them out to be "divinely inspired" and worthy of special status in the Christian canon of sacred scriptures.

So, in this context, the gospel of Judas again will be interesting and useful in some ways, but does not represent a unique or new idea by being a "gospel" that is not in the new testament. There are, as I said, dozens of those that have been read and discussed since the earliest centuries of Christian history.

That's my piece.
Peace,
JC