What I Took With My Morning Coffee > Comments on Of Gnostic Gospels and Media Sensationalism

Go to What I Took With My Morning CoffeeAdd a commentGo to Of Gnostic Gospels and Media Sensationalism

Distinctions, my dear, distinctions
1.  As an artifact from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the Gospel of Judas may be authentic.  But a document that comes from the 2nd or 3rd century is not sufficient to turn into one that a Christian can use for his/her faith as are the canonical Gospels.

2.  The canonical gospels -- Mark, Matthew, Luke and John -- were not accepted by the Vatican.  The Vatican only started to exist less than  a century ago (11 February 1929)!  How the four gospels mentioned above got into the list of authoritative books is a story that can't be discussed fully in a post like this.  The point is, if the Gospel of Judas was lost for 1700 years, it was because the early Church didn't find it worth keeping.  The main reason, as I could see, is not because Judas is the hero in this gospel, but the fact that it had a Christ that the early Church did not recognize.

The main point of these blogs is to show that the Gospel of Judas, which is just one of around twenty other gospels NOT INCLUDED in the canon, is not what it is hyped to be by the media.

posted by Friar__Tuck on April 21, 2006 at 9:53 AM | link to this | reply

how do you discern which is correct?
Are you saying that if it is in the accepted bible (canon) - then it is the truth - and if it is not one of the books selected by the Vatican - it is not significant and indeed, this new Gnostic find, is a cooked up fairy tale - as some scholars would call the book of Genesis?

posted by izzysnews on April 20, 2006 at 12:12 PM | link to this | reply

Referrals - About Us - Press - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Conduct Policy
Copyright © 2019 Shaycom Corporation. All rights reserved.