May God bless you all.

To God alone be all glory, power and dominion.

Well spoken. A few years ago I bought “The Other Bible, Ancient Alternative Scriptures”. It was basically a big book with the text from all the gnostic gospels with minimal commentary (limited to dates and presumed authors, which historians can agree upon.)

I read the “gospels” of Thomas and Mary all the way through, and skimmed a bunch of the others (I didn’t read “Judas” at all…) From what I remember, each of them were so unique in the direction they went, you’d almost have to accept a single one exclusively, or start believing that truth is “whatever you want it to be”.

I think cutting down credibility based on year written and supposed author IS a slippery slope.

Best case scenario, in my mind, would be people actually reading these things and seeing for themselves. The theology is just bad in them. Not just in a sense that they take directions “that I don’t believe in”, but it’s not even rational or consistent. Like Tim said Sunday, it’s all based on this “secret knowledge”, and I don’t see the God of the old testament being secretive. He spoke to the whole assembly on multiple occasions, and sent prophets, etc. to lead all his people. The cannon of the New Testament that we have is consistent with that God. The “Gnostic Gospels” aren’t.

While I think it’s good to publicly call lies “lies”, I think it’s even better to bring people to the Gnostic Gospels, have them read them alongside our Gospels, and see for themselves. God can defend himself, He always has. You don’t have to be a theologian or a Biblical scholar to see the falacies and inconsistencies in those books. I was following God for about a year when I read them, and it was obvious to me.

I’ve found nothing better for the life of a disciple than to have them learn and understand on their own initiative.

The Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas, and does not contain new information that will help you understand the true nature of Christianity.

Perfectly reasonable statement. In fact, I agree completely. Stage 2 (from a NYT quote on my blog):

The word “gospel” means “good news,” and generally refers to accounts of Jesus’ life. Though someone is named in each, the titles are not necessarily those of the true authors. The consensus of scholars is that the four canonical gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — were probably not written by any of the original disciples or first-person witnesses to the life of Jesus, although they were probably written within the first century.

Y’see? If so-called Christians are free to critique this Judas hubbub, then fall on their swords defending those other four ‘gospels’ they love so dearly, aren’t they a bunch of hippocrites? Who let them pick and choose what to accept as God’s Own? (Funny how the answer’s always Jesus.)

This is the battle. We must defend the scholarship that says not all histories, not all perspectivces, are created equal. Are you up to it, Christian?

Joking aside, nice analysis, Matt. I’d been meaning to write about this myself, but I think I just may put a link to your post from my site. Thanks and God Bless!