That cancels out the person who claimed I wa anti-Catholic.
We don’t have a reliable date for when The Gospel of Judas was written.(The Coptic manuscript was carbon dated to 280 AD +/- 60 years — IOW, between 220 and 340 AD.) Whilst the writing style implies a composition date of between 130 and 180 AD, that is by no means definitive.
With the Gospels, we have evidence of them being earlier — arguably, much earlier. As such, it is theoretically possible that the Four Canonical Gospels were deemed as such, prior to the writing of the Gospel of Judas.
My thinking is that reading texts such as The Gospel of Judas, in an effort to understand more comprehensively waht is to be understood by the Bible, is legitimate.
What is not legitimate is the pop-theology that National Geographic sprouts. A theology that can not be substantiated by anything other than an appeal to suspend critical thinking skills, and accept Post-Modern Marxism, as the one true way.
xan
jonathon
I know that this particularly directed at my own posting since it is mine that is quoted …
I do not recall having written anything to have provoked your response …
“For the record”, I would remind you that I voiced an opinion which was “in favour” of having “accepted” the gospel of Judas, rather accepting that it would have been in existance (and thus available to) the Church Fathers, who decided the content ot the the Canonical as most efficacious and accurate, and, that, therefore, at least by implication, it was rejected by them … and I pointed out my understanding of the Faith that, when they so decided, they were “divinely inspired” … as to the actual “dating”, I believe that to be irrelevant, since the gospel of Judas was “extant” and “rejected” …
In fact, I said:- “Is it not the Catholic case that, when the four Canonical Gospels were decided upon, the Gospel of Judas would have been extant, but, for whatever reason, rejected by the Church Fathers, inspired by the Holy Spirit, in favour of the Gospels which were felt to give the most accurate picture of the life of Jesus Christ?”
I, then, voice "suspicion, not only of the gospel of Judas, but also of National Geographic …
In regard to:- “With the Gospels …”, I do not see, wherein lies your disagreement with what I postulated only as a possibility, or a searching question, whose point was only t help me to understand …
And, as to “What is not legitimate …” my common sense tells me that this cannot have been “aimed” at my posting, so I shall notl respond to it, except to say that the second sentence completely confuses me (in both its meaning and in its content).
I find myself wondering whether faith without reasoning (“blind faith”) is Faith at all (and, I emphasiise, I am “wondering” -searching for some uunderstanding- and not making any statement of fact …) … else, why would God give us the power of reason?
It can’t have been an oversight … “God does not have oversights” … it cannot have been a mistake … God does not make mistakes … it cannot have been for nothing … God does nothing for nothing …
"Matthew 9:20 And behold, a woman who had suffered from a hemorrhage for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment;
Matthew 9:21 for she said to herself, “If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well.”
Matthew 9:22 Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And instantly the woman was made well. "
Is it not “legitimate” to wonder whether or not this woman’s “reason” brought her know that to touch the fringe of the garment of Christ would bring her healing?
Or, wait a minute … is it simply that the Bible (the Word of God) does not tell us exactly what Faith is?
Is it not then, for each man to “find his own faith” (and, yes we are told that many will “choose” unwisely), and that, then, true Faith is that which has been both spiritually and consciously chosen by each man himself (and, anticipating misconstuctions of my meaning, I , again, hasten to add that this premise would not preclude men “concurring” in their Faith …).
Again, I would make the point that it is my impression that, we are told in the Scriptures that, on the Day of Judgement, the plea that “I did it because he or she or this or that told me so to do” will be met with the reply: “but what did YOU do to ascertain its veracity and efficacy before you accepted what you had been told and acted upon it.”
Is it not that he or she or this or that will, themselves have to answer for their own actions … we, for our own actions (no matter how “misdirected” or “misled”), and, as the punnishment will fall on “them” for their actions, so shall the punnishment fall on us for our actions (or, indeed, inactions) …
With best wishes, and sincere thanks for your response,
God Bless
William
