What would Jesus eat?

[Kidlicious]

"The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel whose content consists of conversations between the Disciple Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ."

Why would this be a bad thing? Isn't Gnostic mostly just the christians who got left out when the church picked which bits it wanted to use in the final draft of the bible anyway?

Most importantly, I think, is that it was prophesized that the Messiah would be betrayed by his own. All four gospels emphasize the Cross and salvation through the Messiah. He was both human and divine. Gnostic beliefs varied as far as I know (I'm certainly no expert on the matter), but they were significantly different.

[Elok]

Why would this be a bad thing? Isn't Gnostic mostly just the christians who got left out when the church picked which bits it wanted to use in the final draft of the bible anyway?

The Gnostics were a pre-Christian sect who incorporated Jesus into their pseudo-Platonic belief system--at least, some of them did. Others incorporated different beliefs. Anyway, the "Christian" Gnostics, like the ones who wrote the Judas gospel, believed that the whole created world is an evil illusion created by a fallen deity to control men's minds. Basically The Matrix, with spirits instead of machines. Very different from conventional Xianity.

[kentonio]

So the gospels that were set aside when the bible was decided, were those not generally described as gnostic?

[Provost Harrison]

Pork chops with cheese.

[Elok]

So the gospels that were set aside when the bible was decided, were those not generally described as gnostic?

I'm no biblical scholar, but IIUC a portion of them were Gnostic, another portion were otherwise heretical, and the rest were non-heretical but deemed less-than-canonical--not important or significant enough to merit inclusion. Also, "when the Bible was decided" was a much longer, slower and less centralized process than many people would have it. My point was that "Gnostic" refers to a specific set of beliefs starkly different from what we know as Christianity today, and you sounded like you were minimizing the differences.

[Jon Miller]

So the gospels that were set aside when the bible was decided, were those not generally described as gnostic?

Many of them were gnostic.

Gnosticism was popular during that time period.

Note that the early Christian leaders, those from ~100 AD and so on, who we have quotes from/writings from/etc, quoted the canonical gospels and not the gnostic gospels.

Note also that most of the gnostic gospels are first seen much later than the canonical gospels.

Additionally, since gnosticism predated/etc Christianity, the gnostic gospels are not the original ideas. If you don't believe in Christianity you could argue that the original ideas started with Paul and not with Jesus Christ (I would disagree with that, but would not argue that with you... I could with other more scholarly people), but you can't really argue that the first Christians were gnostics and the later Christians 100+ years later perverted the initial message.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

What Elok said... Gnostism is characterized by a Platonic view that our bodies are dirty and evil and our spirits are clean and pure - decidedly in opposition to the Jewish belief (affirmed by Jesus) that our bodies and spirits form one whole and both can and will be redeemed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

btw - Clement was the third pope and disciple of Paul - not a scholar. Most work attributed to him was written about 300 years after he died - obviously a miracle.

You realize that Clement of Alexandria and Pope Clement are two DIFFERENT people, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I

And yes, Clement of Alexandria was a scholar. You are dedicated to getting a bunch of stuff wrong in this thread aren't you?

[Elok]

I might add that the "Jesus's Wife" text is a fragment from the Fourth Century, ie roughly contemporary with the first Council of Nicaea. If we found a scrap of paper, dating to the 1700s, mentioning "the husband of Jeanne d'Arc" but giving scant details or context, what would we make of it?

[Wezil]

Absolutely nothing without pictures.

[Jon Miller]

What is sometimes presented, and what is false, is that beliefs similar to what is believed today was not held by the early church. That the beliefs that are held today came about by manipulating the canon or something similar. Sometimes this is even presented with a conspiracy.

There were different groups that held different positions. The group that 'won' or that set Christianity as it has been for ~2000 years was already in existence before 100 AD and was the earliest group that we have record of (independent of the Bible). This group quoted from/etc the books which ended up in the Bible (and a few other books, like the Shepard one) and had theology which was mainly consistent with the theology that you see now in Christianity (at least compared to the alternates that we know about).

Yes, there were alternates, even from the very beginning. Their beliefs were not compatible with the group that 'won' and in most cases depended on books which were written much later. In many cases these alternates has clear links with pre-Christ belief systems. A reasonable interpretation would be that they had interpreted Christ to fit into their already existent belief systems (including creating books/stories to do so).

JM

[Lorizael]

I might add that the "Jesus's Wife" text is a fragment from the Fourth Century, ie roughly contemporary with the first Council of Nicaea. If we found a scrap of paper, dating to the 1700s, mentioning "the husband of Jeanne d'Arc" but giving scant details or context, what would we make of it?

That it's an interesting piece of evidence possibly deserving of further study, but it wouldn't change the consensus unless more data were forthcoming.

[Lorizael]

In many cases these alternates has clear links with pre-Christ belief systems.

So did the Christians that "won."

[Jon Miller]

I mean in their ideas that are different from Judaism.

As mentioned, gnostics were common before Christ.

JM

[regexcellent]

If we found a scrap of paper, dating to the 1700s, mentioning "the husband of Jeanne d'Arc" but giving scant details or context, what would we make of it?

It's fanfiction.