Vatican shaken by Judas Gospel

Carrera

The Vatican is seemingly being rocked by the implications of yet another gospel preserved by the early Christians in ancient times. This time it's a gospel according to Judas which has taken a great deal of time and effort for experts to decipher. The gospel of Judas now joins other gospels such as the gospel of Thomas or gospel of Mary or the apocalypse of Peter and other texts the Vatican didn't want to accept as canon (although early Christians would surely have disagreed).
The question is, how can the Church defend itself from the challenge being mounted by academics that the real Jesus of Nazareth (although historical) was a totally different personality than the mythological figure created by the Church at the time of the Christian Roman Empire under Constantine? Sure, Christians became very numerous during the first century A.D. but archeologists and scholars can now reveal those early Christians believed a totally different doctrine to that proclaimed by the Vatican today.
As for the Da Vinci code, it's a little bit far-fetched although some of it is, in actual fact, based on genuine texts we now have such as the gospel of Mary There is plenty of evidence to suggest the founders of the Roman Catholic Church basically did away with all those other early Christian texts that contradicted their own theological ideology.
Can the Vatican and the Pope defend themselves from such newly discovered evidence?

wolfix

The Vatican and thr Pope have defended themselves against bigger and more real enemies then this. It's my understanding that the gospel was part of the gnostic heresy which thrived in the mid-second century. Theologians consider this a period of time when facts were distorted.
I doubt anyone in the Vatican is shaken.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

Carrera

The Catholic Church has forwarded its best theologians to mount an ideological defence of the Church's canon. It has dismissed the recently discovered gospels as heresy, drawing on early orthodox writers such as Iraneous or Tertullian to brush the evidence aside.
However, academics are becoming increasingly aware of some important facts. Chief amongst these is the fact there was no actual canon till some 200 years after Jesus died when the original teachings had already undergone significant transformation. The Church came up with the Trinity, deification, immaculate conception by itself - according to scholars who are now turning accepted beliefs upside down.
It seems like what early Christians actually believed can also be derived from these recently discovered texts such as the gospel of Thomas, Judas and Mary e.t.c. Amazingly, Thomas's gospel already contains sayings from Mark or Mathew, plus many others that were preserved. Mark itself may have been cut and parts taken out, according to experts.
The truth is Christians had no dogma that specifically resembles what the Catholic Church has forwarded over the centuries. We now know Christians formed a diverse group of believers, some who were circumcised, others who ate meat, those who believed God the Father was superior and others who believed Jesus was God himself.
But there was no orthodoxy as we know it today. Orthodoxy was the invention of the Catholic Church. This is why the Vatican is under some pressure.

Carrera

The good news is, these recent texts may make religion more enticing for those folks who never had much interest in religion. I mean, Madonna has found a lot of happiness in Kabbalah as opposed to traditional Judaism.
Gnostic Christianity also offers a more tolerant, mystical aspect of Christianity. Orthodox Christianity is fine but the point about Judas is we're witnessing a rethink on the whole religious issue. That is, orthodoxy is only one interpretation of what people believed in ancient times. It was the final creed that won out in the end and later the Church tried to suppress the other accounts that were available.

Eldrack

Most of this recent stuff (Da Vinci code, Judas Gospel) comes from the Gnostic texts, which, as Wolfix as pointed out were written about 80 -- 100 years after the four Gospels in the bible (those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which where written based on the accounts of eye witnesses from the time).

I think it is important to point out that the Da Vinci code is actually just what it claims to be, a work of fiction. The ideas used in the book are therefore exactly that, fiction and have no basis in fact as I believe (if I remember correctly) Dan Brown states at the beginning of the book.

If someone could have disproved the contents of the bible they would have done it by now. Such an thing would be worth a huge amount of money to whoever did it and there are countless people who have tried, but have got no where. Main problem is, it seems, the hundreds of original copies of the new testament dating from around the first century AD, as well as fragments of the new testament, that have all been translated by both Christian and non Christian scholars and all support the state of the bible as it is found today.

Carrera

The gospels came quite late. The earliest is Mark and some of the writings of Paul are quite early. Even then, we're not sure Paul wrote all of those letters since forgery in the ancient world was fairly commonplace i.e. if you write your view in Paul's name, people will follow your letter.
What we now know today as orthodoxy was, in those times, proto-orthodoxy and was in continual competition with other interpretations that may well have become today's orthodoxy, if you see what I mean.
Paul himself may have been gnostic. We know he clashed heavily with Peter over Jewish law since Paul opposed circumcision while other apostles may well have approved of the process for gentiles (owch!). Many experts now see Paul as far more feminist than he was portrayed by the Church and far more controversial - even gnostic perhaps. He was said to have had a disciple called Thecla still revered in Greek Orthodoxy.
Yes, I agree the Da Vinci code is a step too far. This book copied ideas that were already in vogue and popularised them. Despite that, there is genuine evidence to suggest Jesus may have not had a purely platonic relationship with Mary Magdelene and that there was an original gospel of Mark called "secret Mark" from which our Mark was censored and derived.

Carrera

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitem...04/s1610671.htm
"The Judas gospel's introduction says it is "the secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot".
Later, it quotes Jesus as saying to Judas: "You will exceed all of them (the other disciples) for you will sacrifice the man who clothes me."
Professor Ehrman says the gospel suggests that Judas was a "trapped spirit".
And salvation comes when we escape the materiality of our existence and Judas is the one who makes it possible for him to escape by allowing for his body to be killed."
Rev Donald Senior, president of Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, says the document reveals the diversity and vitality in early Christianity.
The question becomes ... does this tradition, this alternative story, if you like, in the gospel of Judas have a claim that in some sense is equal to the rival claim of the gospel tradition?" he said. The Judas gospel is being published in book form by National Geographic and pages from the papyrus manuscript will be on display at the society's museum in Washington."

limerickman

The early church did have tensions in it - there is no doubt.
Peter appears to have wanted the message of Jesus to remain within a Jewish context, whereas Paul wanted to move away from Jewish context and create a distinct sect of followers from Judaism.
So you're correct when you say that certain practices, for example circumcision, were opposed by Paul for the followers of Jesus whereas Peter
appeared to endorse the retention of Jewish customs such as circumcision.

In relation to Christianity though - the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written between 60AD and 100AD and are as contemporaneous and account of the life of Jesus as is possible.

The so called Gnostic Gospels are believed to have been written 120-180 years after the death of Jesus.
Part of the reason as to why the Gnostic Gospels were never given credence in Orthodox Christianity is because those accounts were written by people who had no connection with the life of Jesus.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all knew Jesus.
The authors of the Gnostic Gospels didn't.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Carrera

Gnostic Christianity was bound to fail because it was too closely related to Greek Mystery religion. Every time I try reading gnostic texts, I get a headache but the idea behind it was Jesus had these higher-grade teachings he intended for his very elite followers.
I don't think it's necessarily the case gnostic texts are a lot more modern than, say, the gospel of Mathew or John. The gospel of Judas we now have is thought to have come from a far earlier manuscript. Other gospels such as that of Thomas used to be classed as canon in some early churches, it would appear.
I take your point about Peter and Paul. There were groups of Christians called Ebionites who followed a strictly Jewish Jesus under the Old Testament (Peter's version perhaps) and then you had the Marcionites who rejected YAHWEH totally and idealised St Paul's conception of Jesus. The Marcionites were even a bit anti-semitic and you can find some information about Marcion on Google, if you never heard of him.
Let's bear in mind, gnostic Christianity was only one mystical facet of the various Christian doctrines that were floating about as far back as the first century A.D. The thing is, the gnostics forced mainstream Christianity to finally formulate an actual canon since nobody was sure about issues such as the immaculate conception, the Trinity, bodily (as opposed to astral) resurrection or even heaven and hell. Besides, most gnostics attended mainstream churches and mingled with other factions.