Posted on 04/04/2005 10:11:49 AM PDT by robowombat
For some very interesting info on these matters and related topics, read the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". It's fascinating.
What are your opinions on these extra gospels? I have hear about them but never read them.
There were two Judas'.
Joh 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
I have read some excerpts. What I read is not in any way consistent with the real gospels. I did not find them compelling.
Judas' suicide note?
There are numerous gnostic texts available at places like Barnes and Noble. They include numerous 'gospels' and are almost unbelievably pathetic attempts to paint fantasy as religiosity.
The difference between the tone and doctrine of these supposed 'gospels' and the canon of the Bible as we know it is more than significant.
It's like the "Jesus Seminar" on crack.
The Holy Bible influenced by the Emperor Constantine? Couldn't be - I've had so-called Christians spit in my face for suggesting that.
Cheers, it looks like I will have to do some reading about this. I already have about 50 books piled up for me to read already.
Actually a large number of these texts co-date or pre-date the accepted writing period of the four gospels, which are believed to be put together at the end of the first century.
The Gospel According to Thomas is a good example, it fits well into the synoptic gospels.
And the Nag Hammadi scrolls found a copy of the book of Isaiah, a copy which was IDENTICAL to the current version we have.
And we have somewhere between four and six copies of parts of the New Testament written in Aramaic, some may pre-date the Greek.
New Age horsefeathers. The four canonical gospels were recognized long before 325, and Constantine had nothing to do with that decision.
Other parts of the New Testament canon were "in play" as late as AD 400, but not the Gospels, and not most of the Pauline epistles, either.
>>Holy Blood, Holy Grail". It
Blah, nobody takes that book seriously...
There are many books that did not make it through the decision processes of the church to be in the official Bible. I have no doubt that many if not most of them are controversial, they were chosen not to be included for a reason.
Relying on them to prove or disprove faith or orthodoxy would be like relying on international law to determine the constitutionality of something.
I welcome factual information about these questions.
Most, perhaps all, of the extra 'gospels' are gnostic texts, and were rightly ignored by the Church.
Unlike the teaching of the Church, which was public, and included no hidden esoterica, the gnostic 'gospels' were esoteric, and the basis for 'secret' teachings among the gnostic heretics. (Yes, some things in the old days weren't preached to those who weren't catechumens, but this was a matter of security during the persecutions, but even these were public in the sense that the apologists explained them briefly to pagans in an attempt to avert persecutions).
It's not surprising that this manuscript was found in Egypt: Alexandria was the center of Greco-Roman intellectual life, and was a hot bed of one or another heresy (based on either rationanlist or esoteric speculation) for centuries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.