Viewing Thread:
"The Gospel of Judas"

I just watched a documentary on the Gospel of Judas - an old religious document found recently, an equivalent of one of the 4 'main' gospels (Mark, Luke, John and Steve).

It turns out there used to be around 30 different gospels, and lots of different sects of christianity, primarily following different gospels.

At some point some guy wanted to consilidate all the sects decided to put 4 of the gospels into the bible and brush off all the others.


On the documentary there was a christian minister supporting the status quo - that the Gospel of Judas and all the others didn't matter.

His argument was 'It's a matter of faith. The ones in the bible count, and the others don't. No reason, just faith.'


Oh my god, it's so ridiculous. If you have a think about it, and decide your main 4 are the only ones which genuinely represent the word of god, fine. If you look at how the bible was put together, and come to the judgement that there was some divine intervention making it all valid, so be it.
I may not agree with the conclusions, which is fine. All I'm looking for is actual reasons they believe what they want to believe. Base it on an intangible faith in a god if you will - but let the faith in god, not the faith in everything you've been taught by flawed men.

The argument is essentially 'I've invested a lot of time in believing the bible, if I admit to myself I might have been wrong then my whole faith is invalid'.

To blindly refuse even to consider what the argument is, to just mentally shut up shop and stick your head in the sand, without even listening to the argument or trying to work out what your actual sense faith in god directs you to believe, in the name of fear of truth or change or being wrong - your opinions just become so worthless.


Obviously this doesn't apply to all christians. But the ones it does apply to.. it's repulsive negligence.

Yesyes, but it's what you think happened... I have no idea on the subject, but surely no-one can prove it either way (rather like a micro-cosm of religion itself)? If there were proof that these other Gospels were false and the ones in the Bible true, then surely that would've come to light?

If there is no proof, then all we know for sure is some Gospels were included in the Bible, some weren't. The true motivation behind which made the cut is an unknown, so while you have every right to believe that only Gospels deemed untrue were left out, others can equally believe that Gospels were left out as they did not fit in with those in powers' interpretation of the religion.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were a bit of both, but hell, we'll never know will we?

That's exactly what I think has happened. People who dont want to believe the bible have twisted the story of how it was made to make it seem unreliable.

Geffdof wrote:
> The Gnostic gospels were not included in the Bible because they
> were thought to be false. The gospels that are in the bible are
> actual eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus but the Gnostic
> gospels were written around the 3rd and 4th century, hundreds of
> years later. The bible was only compiled to stop confusion
> amongst people who may possibly get hold of these false texts.
> The Church decided to compile all of the genuine scriptures into
> one whole book (ie The Bible) so that the everyday man would know
> which texts were real and which were fake.

A suspicious/cynical person might have a different version of that story:

> The Gnostic gospels were not included in the Bible because they
> did not agree with powerful religious leaders of the time. The gospels that are in the bible are supposed to be
> actual eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus but the Gnostic
> gospels were supposedly written around the 3rd and 4th century, hundreds of
> years later. The bible was only compiled to legitimize those gospels in it, while discrediting those that were not.
> The Church decided to compile all of the scriptures they agreed with into
> one whole book (ie The Bible) so that the everyday man would know
> which texts he should believe in, and which were not in favour with those in power

I'm not saying that's at all true (someone may be able to prove some of it is false, because I haven't looked into this at all). But surely it's impossible to know the exact motivation of the people who made these decisions?

Geffdof wrote:
> The popular letters would be copied many times and sent
> around to many churches.

> Any fake letter with false teaching
> would obviously not be copied.


I'm not even going to bother. It doesn't need an explanation. Are you serious?


As for the 'editing' thing - the line on the documentary was that blokey arranged a 'committee' and they selected the 4 gospels that best fit their various criteria, and incorporated them into the bible.
Obviously a chain letter needs to be integrated into the main book of the bible somehow.

One of my mates told me this. He got it from a book that Im still yet to get my hands on but its about how we can know the bible is accurate.

Most of the books of the new testament are letters written to churches in different parts of the world. Back then there were no photocopiers or Cc. emails. Only one letter would exist. If someone received a letter with good teachings in it that they wanted to share they would copy it out and send it on to someone else. The popular letters would be copied many times and sent around to many churches. Any fake letter with false teaching would obviously not be copied. These popular letters became the bible. There wasnt some kind of editing going on where a guy in a room decided what should go in and what shouldnt. It was naturally edited over time by people passing on letters. This is then twisted into making it look like that bible was edited, when it wasnt. Thats my understanding of it anyway.

I wish I had that kind of connection with God.

Black Glove wrote:
> That's actually quite a good definition of religious faith.

I'm inclined to disagree. If you have an overpowering feeling of connection to / faith in a god, so be it.

An overpowering feeling of faith in what you've been told to believe by the community around you, without even listening to or examining the arguments and alternatives - even those arguments which fully support the underlying belief in a god...
That's pretty lame.

Geffdof wrote:
> The Gnostic gospels were not included in the Bible because they
> were thought to be false. The gospels that are in the bible are
> actual eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus but the Gnostic
> gospels were written around the 3rd and 4th century, hundreds of
> years later. The bible was only compiled to stop confusion
> amongst people who may possibly get hold of these false texts.
> The Church decided to compile all of the genuine scriptures into
> one whole book (ie The Bible) so that the everyday man would know
> which texts were real and which were fake.


According to the documentary the decision was based on which ones best fitted the churchs' politics of the day (apparently distinguishing themselves from and badmouthing the jewish faith was one of the criteria), which would alienate fewest 'sects' and which were most comfortable reading for your average man in the street.

Obviously with it being so far in the past we can't really know all the factors used in the decision. But your reasoning sounds like it might have arisen as an explanation to justify the decision some time after the fact. (If it was the explanation used at the time it would have caused a big rift between the 'mainstream' religion and the discredited branches of belief.)

Their was supposedly a fifth gospel, that of Jesus, which formed the basis of the film Stigmata.

Though that was probably an invented theme, like that of the Da Vinci Code, it still provides speculation.

Maybe not in this language.